Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Procrastination, thesis writing and Jungian personality type Haskins, Mary Susan 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 H37.pdf [ 3.37MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055908.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055908-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055908-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055908-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055908-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055908-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055908-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055908-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055908.ris

Full Text

PROCRASTINATION, THESIS WRITING AND JUN6IAN PERSONALITY TYPE By MARY SUSAN HASKINS B.A., University of Colorado, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Counselling Psychology) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 1988 (c) Mary Susan Haskins, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Counselling Psychology The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date March 14, 1988 ( i i ) ABSTRACT This study sought to examine the re l a t i o n s h i p between the procrastination involved in thesis writing and Jungian personality type. A sample of 50 graduate students enrolled in the Department of Counselling Psychology at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia par t i c i p a t e d in the study. These i n d i v i d u a l s were c l a s s i f i e d into one of two groups: those who procrastinated while writing t h e i r thesis and those who did not. Procrastination was measured using length of time taken to complete the thesis coupled with s e l f - r e p o r t . The 50 subjects were then administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator which measures Jungian personality type. These two groups were then compared to determine i f s i g n i f i c a n t differences in personality type existed between the procrastinating and nan-procrastinating groups. Five hypotheses were tested. A t-test (two t a i l e d ) was performed using the continuous scores of the four scales of the MBTI to test the f i r s t four hypotheses to determine i f a s t a t i s t i c a l difference could be found between these two groups on these dimensions. No differences were found on the f i r s t three scales (extraversion-introversion; s e n s a t i o n - i n t u i t i o n ; t h i n k i n g - f e e l i n g ) , but a s i g n i f i c a n t difference was found on the judging-perceiving index (p=.008). Procrastinators tended to score toward the perceiving end of the scale while non-procrastinators scored toward the judging end of the continuum. A chi-square analysis using tire dichotomous scores of the MBTI was performed to test the f i f t h hypothesis which predicted that a ( i i i ) s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP types would be p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s than n a n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was accepted (p=.0017) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s do tend to c o r r e l a t e with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . < i v J TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION . . . . . Rationale for the Study Statement of the Problem Theoretical Perspective Purpose of the Study . . . . Sig n i f i c a n c e of the Study D e f i n i t i o n s of Key Terms . . Overview of the Study . . . . CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Proc r a s t i n a t i o n . . . . . Jungian Psychological Type Theory . The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Jungian Personality Type and Learning Theory Jungian Typology and Procrastination Summary . . . (V) CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY . . . . Descr ipt ion and Se lect ion of the Sample Procedures Used in Co l l ec t ing Data Instrumentation . . Items and Scoring P red i c t i ve V a l i d i t y Construct V a l i d i t y Rei i abi1i ty Research Design, Hypotheses and Data Analys is CHAPTER FOUR - RESULTS Demographic Data Results of Hypotheses . Type D i s t r i bu t i on Tables Conclusion CHAPTER FIVE 40 40 41 42 44 46 48 51 52 55 58 62 65 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . 66 Discussion of Results . Overview . . . . Demographic Data Regarding Sample Measuring Procras t inat ion . Findings of the Study 66 66 67 69 69 ( v i ) L i m i t a t i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s -for Future Research . • . 73 L i m i t a t i o n s . . . . . . . . 73 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Future Research . . . . 7 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . 7 8 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . 85 Appendix A: L e t t e r of Contact . . . . . 8 6 Appendix B: I n s t r u c t i o n Sheet . . . . . 8 8 Appendix C: Subject Consent Form . . . . . 9 0 Appendix D: Demographic Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . . . 92 ( v i i ) LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 2.1 Jung's C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Psychological Types . . 25 2.2 Myers' C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 16 Psychological Types . 31 2.3 Frequency Di s t r i b u t i o n s of Types Among C l i n i c a l and Experimental Psychologists . . . . 3 6 4.1 Self-Reported Procrastination of the Procrastinating and Non-Procrastinating Groups . . . . 5 7 4.2 t-test Comparison of Procrastinating and Non-Procrastinating Groups on Continuous Dimensions . 60 4.3 Chi-square Comparison of NFP's Between Procrastinators and Non-Procrastinators . . . . 6 1 .4.4 Procrastinators and Non-Procrastinators Compared According to D i s t r i b u t i o n by Type . . . . 6 2 4.5 Comparison of Procrastinators (N=25) and Non-Procrastinators (N=25) According to Jungian Personality Type . . . . . . 6 3 4.6 Myers-Briggs Type Table D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sample Population . . . . . . 64 4.7 Data from Sample Population Regarding D i s t r i b u t i o n of Type on Each MBTI Index . . . . 6 5 ( v i i i ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to extend my thanks to my thesis committee, and espe c i a l l y to my chairperson, Dr. Steve Marks. He offered me immense support and encouragement in th i s task. Appreciation i s also due to the ind i v i d u a l s who shared their time and energy by p a r t i c i p a t i n g in th i s study. In addition, I would l i k e to thank Pat Henderson, my parents and my co-workers for their support as I undertook t h i s endeavour. A special thanks to Nand Kishor for his techical expertise and patience. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to dedicate t h i s to the memory of my mother who died prior to i t s completion. To a l l , I express my thanks. (1) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Procrastination, the act of deferring or delaying necessary acti o n , i s a psychopathology of everyday l i f e . While the severity of the discomfort resulting from procrastination can range from mild i r r i t a t i o n with oneself to a major a f f e c t i v e disorder, i t i s a phenomenon with which everyone can i d e n t i f y . Beyond the expressed subjective discomfort which accompanies pr o c r a s t i n a t i o n , very real objective consequences sometimes devastating can result from i t s presence in a person's l i f e . Consider the adolescent female who puts off acquiring a means of b i r t h c o n t r o l , or the married couple who remains unhappily wedded for t h i r t y years, or the business executive who i s f i r e d for f a i l i n g to keep up his or her accounts. The examples are myriad. C l e a r l y , the practice of procrastination can wreak havoc in people's l i v e s . This i s a study of one pa r t i c u l a r form of procrastination which i s es p e c i a l l y costly in academic settings: the act of delaying the completion of the f i n a l paper (either thesis or major paper) required for a Master's.degree. Rationale for the Study Procrastination exacts a considerable price in academic s e t t i n g s . E l l i s and Knaus (1977) have estimated that 95 percent of a l l college students engage in pr o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Course withdrawal, poor grades and academic underachievement are a l l r e s u l t s of procrastination (2) (Semb, G l i c k , & Spencer', 1979). The tendency for students to procrastinate appears to increase the longer students are in college . Semb, Glick and Spencer (1979) found that freshmen procrastinate the least and seniors the most. Procrastination at the graduate level reaches near epic proportions, e s p e c i a l l y as i t relates to the f i n a l paper (thesis or d i s s e r t a t i o n ) . Less than 50 percent of those who begin graduate school with the intention of earning a degree actually do so (Creager, 1965; Knox, 1970; S e l l s , 1973). S t a t i s t i c s are not available to indicate how much of t h i s a t t r i t i o n rate i s due to f a i l u r e to complete the f i n a l paper, but anecdotal data from procrastinators and th e i r committees indicate that the problem of completing t h i s f i n a l paper i s widespread amoung otherwise competent and highly functioning graduate students. While graduate student f o l k l o r e abounds with s t o r i e s regarding the procrastination involved in thesis w r i t i n g , there has been very l i t t l e research conducted on th i s t o p i c . C l e a r l y , t h i s i s a problematic area in the academic world that has received l i t t l e attention from researchers. Statement of the Problem Procrastination i s a mysterious behavior both to those who endure i t as well as those who would explain i t . As Sabini and S i l v e r (1982) point out, the procrastinator i s someone who knows what he or she wants to do, appears capable of doing i t , i s often in some sense trying to do i t yet does not do i t . Various reasons have been postulated to explain the phenomenon: fear of f a i l u r e , evaluation anxiety, problems in decision making, r e b e l l i o n against c o n t r o l , fear (3) of success, perfectionism, low self-esteem and perceived aversiveness of the task (Burka & Yuen, 1982). The relatively sparse research pertaining to procrastination is reflected in Solomon and Rothblum's point that prior to their study in 1984, no one had attempted a systematic study of the reasons for procrastination. Most studies have confined themselves to seeing procrastination as a time management problem or a deficit in study s k i l l s (Miller, Weaver, & Semb, 1974; Ziesat, Rosenthal, & White, 1978). Solomon and Rothblum (1984) found, however,^that procrastination involves a complicated interaction among behavioral, cognitive and affective components. Blatt and Quinlan (1967) concluded from their research that nothing short of a total personality theory should be applied to the study of procrastinators and non-procrastinators because of the fundamental differences they found between the two groups. This may be an important key to the understanding of procrastination. While it is a practice which cuts across a l l socio-economic levels and affects al l ethnic groups, a l l ages, a l l occupations and both genders (Burka & Yuen, 1984), there may be certain individuals who are more prone to procrastination than others because of personality factors. Myers and McCaulley (1985) suggest that procrastination is a result of the way certain personality types process information. There have, however, been no studies published to date which investigate the relationship between procrastination and personality type. This study explored this relationship and sought to answer the question, "Do those who procrastinate on the thesis and those who do not differ significantly in personality type?". (4) Theoretical Perspective Carl Jung postulated a theory of personality type (1921) based on his c l i n i c a l observations and advocated that i t be used as a tool for empirical research. In 1962, Myers made this passible by publishing an instrument, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). It was designed to implement Jung's theory so that the ideas of type could be tested and put to p r a c t i c a l use. Jung hypothesized that human beings re l a t e to the world with one of two fundamentally d i f f e r e n t modes or "at t i t u d e s " . Some (those he termed "extraverts") get their psychic energy from the outer world of people and things while others ("introverts") are c l e a r l y more comfortable r e l a t i n g to their inner world of ideas. In the extraverted a t t i t u d e , psychic energy flows outward toward the outer world or object. The introverted attitude is characterized by a psychic flow of energy inward with concentration on subjective factors and inner responses. A second "attitude" he observed was the way in which in d i v i d u a l s r e l a t e to the outer world. Some function primarily by perceiving the world while others tend to make conclusions about the world. How they do th i s perceiving or judging w i l l be determined by which "functions" they prefer to u t i l i z e . One can perceive either i n t u i t i v e l y or with the senses but not both simultaneously. One judges or makes decisions using either l o g i c or values, but either thinking or fe e l i n g w i l l i n e v i t a b l y have to be suspended for a conclusion to be made. Intuition and sensation are the two mutually (5) exclusive " i r r a t i o n a l " functions and thinking and feelin g comprise the two " r a t i o n a l " functions, according to his model. The MBTI seeks to measure these preferred ways of dealing with both the world and subjective experiences. The r e s u l t s of the MBTI indicate people's personality type by stating their preferred orientation to l i f e : extraversion (E) or introversion ( I ) , their preferred perceptive function: sensing (S) or i n t u i t i n g (N), and their preferred judgment function: thinking <T) or feelin g (F). In addition, to c l a r i f y further the differences that occur in the psychological types developed by Jung, Myers added a fourth preference which distinguishes preferred attitudes or ways of managing the outer world ( i . e . , work habits): judgment (J) or perception (P). Those who prefer perceiving (either S or N) w i l l score P, whereas those who favor judging (either T or F) when dealing with the external environment w i l l score J . Type theory assumes that children are born with a predisposition to prefer certain functions and attitudes over others and that they w i l l develop these functions as long as the environment does not impede or hamper t h i s development. While the preferred function i s developed, there i s a r e l a t i v e neglect of the opposite pole of the same preference. In other words, i f one prefers thinking when making conclusions about the world, the fe e l i n g function w i l l be neglected. If one u t i l i z e s the sensation function when perceiving, the i n t u i t i v e process w i l l be undeveloped. In th i s model, environment i s cru c i a l because i t can foster development of a person's natural preferences and s k i l l s or i t can discourage and f r u s t r a t e his or her natural bent by providing a c t i v i t i e s that are less s a t i s f y i n g and motivating. Jung (6) maintained that i f i n d i v i d u a l s who were naturally predisposed in one di r e c t i o n were forced by their environment to behave otherwise, neurosis or (in extreme cases) even psychosis could develop in later l i f e . Jung argued that the less preferred fucntions would by d e f i n i t i o n be awkward and not always under conscious control of the ego. In youth, the task i s to develop the dominant and a u x i l i a r y (or second function). In m i d - l i f e , he considered i t necessary to develop the less preferred and i n f e r i o r functions in order to individuate. The "way to God" or "wholeness" in la t e r years would be made possible by developing the fourth function which i s largely unconscious and exists in the "shadow" as p o t e n t i a l i t y . Myers and McCaulley (1985) hypothesize that procrastination may occur in certain i n d i v i d u a l s because of their p a r t i c u l a r personality type. Individuals who tend to score extremely high on the P side of the judging/perceiving index may be e s p e c i a l l y vulnerable to pro c r a s t i n a t i o n . They suggest that those who have a d e f i c i t in their judgment attitude ( i . e . , extreme perceputal type^}) may exhibit problems related to " d i f f u s i o n , d r i f t i n g , procrastination and confusion over d i r e c t i o n " (p.70). These in d i v i d u a l s tend to remain in the perceptual mode (either S or N) when a judgment attitude (T or F) i s required for decision-making and action. In other words, their perceptual f a c u l t i e s are under conscious control of their ego while their judgment functions sometimes are not. Their judgment attitude tends to be awkward and these i n d i v i d u a l s therefore can become stuck in what they do best: perceiving rather than acting. As noted e a r l i e r , when in d i v i d u a l s are faced with a task which forces them to (7) u t i l i z e t h e i r weaker and more awkward attitudes and/or functions, a considerable amount of dysfunction and d i s t r e s s tends to occur. In addition, i n t u i t i v e - f e e l i n g - p e r c e p t i v e (NFP) types have been found to have a poorly developed sense of time. Intuitives tend to be future oriented while sensation types are more focused on the present (Myers & McCaul1ey, 1985). If the i n t u i t i v e i s also a perceptive type (NP), s/he w i l l have very l i t t l e sense of time and w i l l have greater d i f f i c u l t y with time management than those who either have a strong judging attitude (SJ, NJ, TJ, FJ) or those who are more grounded in the present (SP). Individuals who rely primarily on their i n t u i t i o n when dealing with the external world w i l l have flashes of i n s i g h t , see tremendous p o s s i b i l i t i e s in the future but have l i t t l e or no grounding in space or time and hence suffer from an i n a b i l i t y to manage time. A strong judging function (T or F) or sensation (S) i s required i f one is to make decisions and manage time e f f e c i v e l y . This poorly developed sense of time appears to be made even worse, however, i f the intuit i v e - p e c e p t i v e individual i s also a f e e l i n g type. Feeling types, by d e f i n i t i o n , base their decisions on values as opposed to l o g i c . The i n t u i t i v e - p e r c e p t i v e type has a greater chance of e f f e c t i v e time management i f his or her rat i o n a l function i s one which u t i l i z e s logic as opposed to values when making decisions. The NFP type, therefore, appears to be a high r i s k candidate for having problems with pr o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Purpose of the Study It i s no secret to academia that a considerable number of (8) supposedly g i f ted ind iv idua l s do not receive degrees due to the f a i l u r e to complete the thes i s requirement. For many that do complete their theses, a s i g n i f i c a n t number perceive themselves to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more depressed, more anxious, more a l ienated, less opt imis t i c and less f r i end l y during the years spent writ ing the i r thes i s than during the year a f ter completion (McRae & Skelton, 1 9 7 9 ) . Given these f ac t s , i t i s surpr i s ing that very few, i f any, studies have been conducted to examine the problems re lated to procras t inat ion on the thes i s . The purpose of th i s study, then, was to begin to examine th i s unresearched and problematic area with the expressed intent of demystifying th i s puzzl ing graduate student behavior. Given the mounting evidence that learning can be f a c i l i t a t e d by becoming aware of learning s ty les as predicted by persona l i ty types, th i s study was an attempt to provide hard data l i nk ing procras t inat ion with persona l i ty type so that potent ia l procras t inators could be i d e n t i f i e d ear ly in the i r t r a i n i n g . It would then be poss ib le to implement e f f e c t i v e treatment s t ra teg ies to address the i r pa r t i cu l a r def ic iences and prevent the considerable waste in time, money and stress current ly experienced in graduate schools. This study tested Myers and McCaulley's hypothesis that procras t inators tend to be perceptive types while non-procrast inators tend to be judging types. Their contention i s that i nd iv idua l s with high percept ive scores tend to procras t inate as a habitual mode of behavior and those with high judgment scores do not. In add i t i on , i t tested the notion that NFP types (due to the way they process and act on information) would be more l i k e l y to be procrast inators than other persona l i ty types. It was beyond the scope of th i s study to (9) investigate procrastination as a fixed personality t r a i t . It d i d , however, test Myers and McCaulley's hypothesis on t h i s t a s k - s p e c i f i c si tuati on. The secondary purpose of the study was of a sore exploratory nature which was to analyze the d i s t r i b u t i o n of types within the two groups (of procrastinators and non-procrastinators) to determine i f a s i g n i f i c a n t number of s p e c i f i c types appeared to cluster in either group. This was done to determine i f differences other than those predicted by the l i t e r a t u r e might e x i s t . Significance of the Study The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the study was thre e f o l d . As has been pointed out, procrastination has been primarily viewed as a phenomenon which is randomly d i s t r i b u t e d through out the population, a f f e c t i n g a l l ages, occupations, socio-economic le v e l s and both genders. It has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been treated in a s i m p l i s t i c fashion and only recently has been considered a complicated phenomenon with cognitive, a f f e c t i v e and behavioral components. While researchers have called for a more comprehensive study of pr o c r a s t i n a t i o n , there have been no studies to date which have applied personality theory to the phenomenon. This study does just that. Secondly, the study tested Myers and McCaulley's currently untested theory that procrastination i s indeed a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a par t i c u l a r personality type. The implications of t h i s finding could hold s i g n i f i c a n c e both for ind i v i d u a l s (in terms of enhancing self-understanding) and for higher education at large as well . Having (10) • a r o o t problem more c l e a r l y d e f i n e d g r e a t l y f a c i l i t a t e s the implementation of e f f e c t i v e treatment i n t e r v e n t i o n s . F i n a l l y , t h i s study has c o n t r i b u t e d to the p r a c t i c a l l y n o n - e x i s t e n t body of l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g with the act of t h e s i s w r i t i n g i t s e l f , although the t h e s i s i s a common requirement f o r a graduate degree i n many d i s c i p l i n e s . P r i o r to t h i s s t u d y , no attempt had been made to i n v e s t i g a t e p o s s i b l e reasons f o r the f a c t t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e number of s t u d e n t s postpone g e t t i n g t h e i r degrees f o r years (due to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on t h e i r t h e s i s ) i n s p i t e of obvious o c c u p a t i o n a l and economic consequences f o r themselves and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . D e f i n i t i o n s of Key Terms p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : T h i s study used the d e f i n i t i o n of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n p r o v i d e d by Wedeman (1985): The tendency to delay or av o i d a task one i n t e n d s to complete. The p a r t i c u l a r task i n v o l v e d i n t h i s study was the c o m p l e t i o n of the t h e s i s r e q u i r e d f o r graduate s t u d e n t s to r e c e i v e t h e i r degree in C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s were o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as those who delayed the com p l e t i o n of t h e i r t h e s e s u n t i l t h e i r f i f t h year and s e l f - r e p o r t i n g always or n e a r l y always p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on t h i s t a s k . N o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s were d e f i n e d o p e r a t i o n a l l y as those who completed t h e i r theses w i t h i n two years of co m p l e t i n g t h e i r coursework and s e l f - r e p o r t e d never or almost never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on t h i s t a s k . P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n was t h e r e f o r e measured by b e h a v i o r a l delay as well as s e l f - r e p o r t (to scre e n out other f a c t o r s which might have c o n t r i b u t e d to the de l a y other than p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n ) . (11) The following are brief descriptions of terms related to Jungian typology as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Terms such as "extravert", " i n t r o v e r t " , "thinker", " f e e l e r " , "judger", etc. are defined below. The use of such words to describe people i s simply a convention intended to save time and space when r e f e r r i n g to peopie who prefer various attitudes and functions as defined by Jung. At no time i s i t intended to reduce a person to a mere category or l a b e l . a t t i tude: A term used by Jung to indicate a person's preferred orientation of l i b i d o ; a person with an introverted attitude (I! orients l i b i d o inwardly to the intra-psychic world, while a person with an extraverted attitude (E) orients l i b i d o outwardly to the world of objects. In other words, the introvert w i l l give and receive energy to and from their inner world while extraverts receive and give energy primarily to and from the outer world. Myers added an additional a t t i t u d e , the judging-perceiving a t t i t u d e , to Jungian theory. This dimension indicates the way in which a person manages the outer world. Those who are found to have a judging attitude (J) wil l tend to prefer to use their rational function (either thinking or feeling) when r e l a t i n g to the outer world. Those who have a perceiving attitude (P) w i l l tend to u t i l i z e their preferred i r r a t i o n a l function (either sensation or i n t u i t i o n ) when managing the outer world. continuous score: A transformation of preference scores on the MBTI as i f there was no dichotomy by setting a midpoint at 100 and subtracting the numerical portion of the preference score from 100 for preferences E, S, T, and J , and by adding the numerical portion to 100 for preferences I, N, F, and P. Use of continuous scores allows the (12) strength of the preference to be taken into consideration. dichotomouB score: The basic score used to describe each MBTI preference, made up of a l e t t e r indicating d i r e c t i o n of the preference. Only the d i r e c t i o n , not strength, of the preference is indicated when dichotomous scores are used. extravert (E): A person who habitually turns his or her energy outward from subject to object and i s dependent upon the object. Myers uses the term to refer to a person who focuses perception and judgment primarily upon people and things (the outer world). Operationally, i t refers to a person who obtains a preference score on the extraversion side of the extraversion/introversion index of the MBTI. f e e l i no (F): One of the four basic functions described by Jung (1921). He defined " f e e l i n g " as a "process that takes place primarily between the ego and a given content...imparting...to the content a d e f i n i t e value in the sense of acceptance or r e j e c t i o n " (p.434). Jung distinguished i t from emotion. It i s the function that evaluates an object, determines whether i t i s desirable or undesirable and i t s degree of importance. Myers defines " f e e l i n g " as judging primarily in a personal way to determine valued and not valued. Operationally, a "f e e l e r " i s a person who obtains a preference score on the f e e l i n g side of the thinking/feeling index of the MBTI. function: As defined by Jung, a function i s a p a r t i c u l a r form of psychic a c t i v i t y that remains the same in p r i n c i p l e under varying conditions.- He maintained there were four (and only four) functions that people u t i l i z e : sensation (S), i n t u i t i o n (N), thinking (T) and feeli n g (F). Thinking and f e e l i n g represent two mutually exclusive (13) ways of j u d g i n g or making d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the e x t e r n a l w o r l d . Sensing and i n t u i t i n g r e p r e s e n t two opposing ways of p e r c e i v i n g or t a k i n g i n data from the e x t e r n a l w o r l d . i n t r o v e r t ( I ) : A person who h a b i t u a l l y withdraws energy or l i b i d o from the o b j e c t or outer world and i n t o him or h e r s e l f . Myers uses the term to d e s c r i b e a person whose main i n t e r e s t i s in the i n n e r world of i d e a s . O p e r a t i o n a l l y , i t r e f e r s to a person who o b t a i n s a p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e on the i n t r o v e r s i o n s i d e of the i n t r o v e r s i o n / e x t r a v e r s i o n index of the MBTI. i n t u i t i o n (N): One of the four b a s i c f u n c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d by Jung. It i s the act of becoming aware of t h i n g s i n d i r e c t l y by way of the u n c o n s c i o u s . It i s a way of p e r c e i v i n g by which the unconscious t a c k s a s s o c i a t i o n s or i d e a s onto o u t s i d e s t i m u l i . O p e r a t i o n a l l y , an i n t u i t o r i s a person who o b t a i n s a p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e on the i n t u i t i o n s i d e of the s e n s i n g / i n t u i t i o n index of the MBTI. judqer ( J ) : T h i s term r e f e r s to a person who r e l i e s p r i m a r i l y on a judging p r o c e s s ( e i t h e r t h i n k i n g or f e e l i n g ) when d e a l i n g with the outer w o r l d . T h i s term i s not meant to connote "judgmental". A "judger" i n the Jungian sense i s someone who p r e f e r s r e l a t i n g to the outer world by emphasizing p l a n n i n g and d e c i s i o n making. It i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from those who r e l y p r i m a r i l y on a p e r c e i v i n g mode where they deal with the outer world through the s e n s a t i o n or i n t u i t i v e f u n c t i o n . O p e r a t i o n a l l y , i t r e f e r s to a person who o b t a i n s a p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e on the j u d g i n g s i d e of the j u d g i n g / p e r c e i v i n g index of the MBTI. ju d g i n g p r e f e r e n c e s ( J ) : The j u d g i n g a t t i t u d e r e p r e s e n t s the way i n which a person w i l l manage the outer w o r l d . Those who are found to (14) have a ju d g i n g a t t i t u d e are those who p r e f e r to u t i l i z e e i t h e r t h e i r t h i n k i n g (T) or f e e l i n g (F) f u n c t i o n when managing the outer w o r l d . The j u d g i n g - p e r c e i v i n g dichotomy as an a t t i t u d e r e p r e s e n t s an a d d i t i o n to Jungian theory as developed by Myers. MBTI: R e f e r s to the Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r which was designed as an instrument t o measure Jungian p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e . It was f i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n 1962. It i s the instrument used i n t h i s study to i d e n t i f y type p r e f e r e n c e s . p e r c e i ver (P): T h i s term r e f e r s to a person who p r e f e r s to r e l y on a p r i m a r i l y p e r c e p t i v e a t t i t u d e ( s e n s i n g or i n t u i t i o n ) when d e a l i n g with the outer w o r l d . O p e r a t i o n a l l y , i t r e f e r s to a person who o b t a i n s a p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e on the p e r c e i v i n g s i d e of the j u d g i n g / p e r c e i v i n g index of the MBTI. p e r c e p t i v e p r e f e r e n c e s (P): . The p e r c e i v i n g a t t i t u d e r e p r e s e n t s the way i n which a person manages the outer w o r l d . Those who are found to have a p e r c e i v i n g a t t i t u d e are those who p r e f e r to u t i l i z e t h e i r s e n s a t i o n (S) or i n t u i t i v e (N) f u n c t i o n when d e a l i n g with the outer w o r l d . The p e r c e i v i n g - j u d g i n g dichotomy as an a t t i t u d e r e p r e s e n t s an a d d i t i o n to Jungian t h e o r y as developed by Myers. p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e : The score f o r each of the four i n d i c e s ( e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i o n ; s e n s i n g / i n t u i t i n g ; t h i n k i n g / f e e l i n g ; j u d g i n g / p e r c e i v i n g ) which i n d i c a t e s the d i r e c t i o n of a p r e f e r e n c e and i t s magnitude ( e . g . , F= 14). The p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e i s computed by s u b t r a c t i n g the l e s s e r raw score from the g r e a t e r raw s c o r e on a given d i m e n s i o n , m u l t i p l y i n g the d i f f e r e n c e by two, and then adding a p o i n t i f the p r e f e r e n c e i s zero or i n the d i r e c t i o n of I,N,T,P ( f o r males) or I,N,F,P ( f o r f e m a l e s ) . A p o i n t i s s u b t r a c t e d from the t o t a l i f the (15) preference i s in the d i r e c t i o n of E,S,F,J (for males) or E,S,T,J (for females). personality type: For the purposes of t h i s study, personality type sha l l mean the p a r t i c u l a r combination of four indexed flyers-Briggs Type Indicator preferences as indicated by a four l e t t e r code. There are 16 possible combinations or types in Myers' scheme. Myers elaborated upon Jung's notion of judging and perceiving by creating a fourth dimension, thus increasing Jung's o r i g i n a l schema of eight types to 16. sensi ng (S): One of the four basic functions described by Jung. It i s the process of becoming aware of things d i r e c t l y through any of the f i v e senses with the emphasis on immediate evidence. Sensing is related not only to external stimuli but inner ones as well (as Jung defined i t ) . Myers does not include the inner processes in her d e f i n i t i o n of sensing. Operationally, a "sensor" i s a person who obtains a preference score on the sensing side of the sensing/ i n t u i t i n g index of the MBTI. thi nking (T): One of the four functions described by Jung. It i s a l o g i c a l , impersonal way of judging to determine true or f a l s e . Operationally, a "thinker" i s a person who obtains a preference score on the thinking side of the thinking/feeling index of the MBTI. Overview of the Study This study consists of f i v e chapters. Chapter One i s the introduction. Chapter Two i s a review of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e . Chapter Three contains a description of the methodology: description (16) and s e l e c t i o n of sample, p r o c e d u r e s , i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , r e s e a r c h desi hypotheses and data a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t s are p r e s e n t e d i n Chapter Four and a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s and l i m i t a t i o n s are found i n Chapter F i v e . (17) CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The relevant l i t e r a t u r e regarding the following s p e c i f i c areas of study are reviewed in t h i s chapter: 1. procrastination-—academic procrastination and thesis writing 2. Jungian psychological type theory 3. the liyers-Briggs Type Indicator as a measure of Jungian typology 4. Jungian typology as i t relates to procrastination 5. Jungian typology and learning theory Procrastination P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , the tendency to delay or avoid a task one intends to complete, i s a universal phenomenon in human experience. Even Shakespeare found i t s i g n i f i c a n t enough to cause Hamlet to lament his unwillingness to do that which he has "cause, and w i l l , and strength, and means to do't" (Hamlet 4.4.45-46). Despite i t s u n i v e r s a l i t y , i t has received scant attention from researchers. This is s u r p r i s i n g , given the t o l l i t takes in academic set t i n g s . H i l l , H i l l , Chabot, and B a r r a l l (1978) found that procrastination i s a substantial problem among college students. Ely and Hampton 11973) and Rosati (1975) reported that between 22 to 33 percent of college students procrastinated on assignments. Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami (1986) found that more than 40 percent of the students they investigated reported high levels of procrastination. They also found a s i g n i f i c a n t negative correl ation•between procrastination and grade (18) point average indicating that procrastination i s related to poor academic performance. E l l i s and Knaus (1977) estimate that f u l l y 95 percent of college students engage in p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Academic underachievement, poor grades and course withdrawal have a l l been found to be r e s u l t s of procrastination (Semb, G l i c k , & Spencer, 1979). Biggs and Felton (1973) and Shaeffer (1973) linked p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , lack of goal setting and poor study habits to 44 percent of students admitted to college who were either terminated or placed on probation for academic reasons. More than 50 percent'of those who begin a graduate program with the intention of earning a degree f a i l to do so (Creager, 1965; Knox, 1970). It i s not known how much of t h i s f a i l u r e i s due to time f i n a l l y running out on p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s , nor, i s i t known to what extent procrastination a f f e c t s those who do f i n a l l y succeed in earning their degree. What appears to be c l e a r , however, i s the fact that procrastination i s widespread in academic settings and i t s e f f e c t s are consi derab1e. Even less research has been done on thesis writing, in spite of anecdotal data which t e s t i f y to the trauma and stress involved in writing a thesis or d i s s e r t a t i o n . McRae and Skelton (1979) found that subjects perceived themselves as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more alienated, depressed, anxious and less optimistic and less f r i e n d l y during the year(s) when they were writing their thesis than they were during the year fallowing i t s completion. For many ind i v i d u a l s (especially p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) , this.period of time for writing can take up to f i v e years, and sometimes even longer for those who receive extensions beyond the f i v e year l i m i t . This i s c l e a r l y a s i g n i f i c a n t length of (19) time to be experiencing a l i e n a t i o n , depression, and anxiety. Marriages and friendships are frequently strained. The costs in terms of emotional, f i n a n c i a l and physical well being are often considerable. Given these costs, i t appears important that research be undertaken to begin to explore the phenomenon of procrastination in thesis writing. The purpose of t h i s study, then, i s to address this issue by investigating the personality components of those who procrastinate on their thesis as opposed to those who do not. If s i g n i f i c a n t personality differences can be found on the MBTI between procrastinators and non-procrastinators, those vulnerable to procrastination on the thesis could be i d e n t i f i e d and strategies to remedy this potential problem could be implemented at the outset of graduate programs. This could p o t e n t i a l l y reduce or possibly prevent the tremendous cost currently experienced by procrastinators. As Green (1982) points out, procrastination has received minimal theoretical a n a l y s i s . Until recently, most studies on procrastination have defined i t as being a time management or study s k i l l s d e f i c i t ( M i l l e r , Weaver, & Semb, 1974; Ziesat, Rosenthal, White, 1978). As a consequence, treatment of procrastination has centered mostly on behavioral techniques (Green, 1982; Richards, 1975). Researchers have found that procrastination can be reduced through negative reinforcement ( M i l l e r , Weaver, & Semb, 1974), po s i t i v e reinfocement (B r i s t o l & Sloane, 1974; Lu, 1976) and through guidelines and imposed deadlines (Keenan, Bono, & Hursh, 1978). Self-control techniques have been found to reduce procrastination (Groveman, Richards, & Caple, 1977; Jackson & Van Zoost, 1972; Kirschenbaum & P e r r i , 1982; Richards, 1975, 1981; Sieveking, Campbell, R i l e i g h , St Savitsky, 1971). Green (20) (1982) found that self-monitoring plus self-reward was most e f f e c t i v e in reducing procrastinative behaviors. The most obvious component to procrastination i s behavioral delay. A l l researchers agree that included in i t s d e f i n i t i o n i s the tendency to delay or avoid a task. But beyond t h i s s t a r t i n g point, diverqent points of view begin to emerge. Solomon and Rothblum (1984) challenge the idea that procrastination can be defined, assessed and treated adequately by focusing solely on the behavioral dimension. They claim that procrastination i s a complicated int e r a c t i o n of cognitive, a f f e c t i v e and behavioral components. Burka and Yuen (1982) lend support to t h i s position by stating that "procrastination i s a complex psychological problem that seldom yields to simple remedies" (p.32). Wedeman (1985) defines i t as the tendency to delay or avoid a task one intends to complete. Her d e f i n i t i o n introduces the cognitive component involved in procrastination: i t i s b a s i c a l l y i r r a t i o n a l . As Sabini and S i l v e r (1982) point out, not everyone who puts things off is a procrastinator: note the adolescent who avoids doing the dishes because s/he knows that Hon w i l l do them i f s/he s t a l l s long enough. It i s sometimes rational to s t a l l or avoid doing an onerous task i f chances are great that the s t a l l i n g may in fact ensure that the task w i l l not have to be done at a l l . P r ocrastination, however, i s avoiding a task that must be done. It depends on a person s knowing what to do and then not doing i t . It i s a manifestation of the human capacity for being divided i n t e r n a l l y . This internal tension produces an additional element which appears to be ever-present in procrastination: a f f e c t i v e discomfort. Rothblum, Solomon, and (21) Murakami (1986) include the a f f e c t i v e component of anxiety in their d e f i n i t i o n of academic procrastination maintaining that procrastination constitutes more than a reasonable length of time to complete a task; " i t must include problematic levels of anxiety as well" (p.387). Most recent investigations of procrastination report high levels of a f f e c t i v e discomfort accompanying the practice of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Burka and Yuen (1982) maintain that procrastinators, regardless of whether they incur academic consequences, suffer anxiey, lowered self-esteem, a sense of fraudulence and self-deprecation. Solomon and Rothblum (1984) found that procrastination correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with self-report measures of depression, i r r a t i o n a l cognitions, low self-esteem, anxiety and lack of a s s e r t i o n . They conclude that any d e f i n i t i o n of procrastination should include both behavioral delay and psychological d i s t r e s s . Grecco (1984) found that procrastination correlated p o s i t i v e l y with neuroticism and depression. Powers (1984) concluded that procrastinators demonstrate lower self-esteem, have less time competence than the norm and report f e a r , anxiety and depression as a consequence of their delaying behavior. The causes of procrastination beyond a d e f i c i t in time management or study s k i l l s — - h a v e only recently been investigated in a systematic way (Rothblum,. Beswick, & Mann, 1984; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986; Solomon It Rothblum, 1984). These investigators conclude that "time management i s not an independent factor that explains procrastination behavior. Although items constituting time management were highly endorsed, students simultaneously endorsed other cognitive, a f f e c t i v e and behavioral reasons for procrastinating" (22) (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984, p. 509). Burka and Yuen (1982) suggest numerous reasons for procrastination: evaluation anxiety, d i f f i c u l t y in decision making, r e b e l l i o n against c o n t r o l , fear of f a i l u r e , fear of the consequences of success, perceived aversiveness of the task, and overly p e r f e c t i o n i s t i c standards regarding competency. Powers (1984) found that procrastinators are more internal in their locus of control than the norm. Wedeman (1985) compared procrastination with perfectionism, autonomy, f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance, fear of success, fear of f a i l u r e , lack of planfulness, and r e a l i t y interference in 226 students. She found that f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance was found to be strongly and negatively related to procrastination. Lack of planfulness and perfectionism were moderately and negatively related to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Fear of success was moderately and positively-related to procrastination among male subjects. C l e a r l y , procrastination i s a complex topic which does appear to include cognitive, a f f e c t i v e and behavioral dimensions. Frey and Becker (1958) found personality factors (introversion/extraversion) which correlated with i n d i v i d u a l s who either f a i l e d to appear cr continuously postponed appointments for experimental purposes. Blatt and Qunilan (1967) compared procrastinating and punctual students on several time parameters and found that punctual students had greater future time extension in fantasy productions, reported less preoccupation with death and did s i g n i f i c a n t l y better on a scale assumed to assess the capacity for a n t i c i p a t i o n and planning. They conclude that fundamental differences exist between those who l i v e primarily in the present and others who rely on continuity and purpose between past, present and future. They emphasize the need for further r e s e a r c h to develop p e r s o n a l i t y theory i n t h i s a r e a . While s e v e r a l s t u d i e s have noted p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s i n v o l v e d in p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g b e h a v i o r , t h e r e has been no attempt to study the p e r s o n a l i t y p r o f i l e s of p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s i n a comprehensive way. Powers (1984) concludes i n h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n that "the p e r s o n a l i t y of a p r o c r a s t i n a t o r ( i . e . , l o c u s of c o n t r o l and i n n e r - o t h e r d i r e c t e d n e s s ) i n f l u e n c e s how s/he p e r c e i v e s h i s / h e r p r o c r a s t i n a t i v e b e h a v i o r . T h i s . . . i m p l i e s that f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on the dynamics of o r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . . . needs to i n c l u d e the p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s " (p.3343-B). Jungian P s y c h o l o g i c a l Type Theory C a r l Jung f i r s t p u b l i s h e d h i s theory of p s y c h o l o g i c a l types i n 1921. His theory grew out of o b s e r v a t i o n s of both c o l l e a g u e s and c l i e n t s and was f i r s t i n s p i r e d by the c o n f l i c t s t hat both he and A l f r e d A d l e r had with Freud (Mattoon, 1981). Jung was d i s t r e s s e d over h i s own break with Freud and spent years a t t e m p t i n g to an a y l z e the reasons f o r i t . He t h e r e f o r e spent a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of e f f o r t and thought s t u d y i n g the q u a r r e l between Freud and Adler which l e d to A d l e r ' s withdrawal from Freud's c i r c l e i n 1911. A d l e r , l i k e Jung a few years l a t e r , had been a valued member of the Vienna p s y c h o a n a l y t i c group. When A d l e r ' s d i f f e r e n c e s with Freud became i r r e c o n c i l a b l e , A d l e r r e s i g n e d from the group and formed h i s own s o c i e t y . T h e i r disagreement c e n t e r e d around the e t i o l o g y of n e u r o s i s . Freud b e l i e v e d i t s o r i g i n was sexual c o n f l i c t and A d l e r found the o r i g i n to be in the w i l l to power and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p to s o c i e t y . S i n c e both A d l e r and Jung had s i m i l a r (24) u p b r i n g i n g s , were p r o d u c t s of the sane i n t e l l e c t u a l environment and had pursued the same i n t e r e s t s f o r a decade, Jung q u e s t i o n e d how and why such i d e o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s c o u l d have emerged between the two. He h y p o t h e s i z e d that t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s l a y i n d i f f e r e n t ways of p e r c e i v i n g the world. His P s y c h o l o g i c a l Types e x p l o r e d h i s t o r y , l i t e r a t u r e and mythology comparing other p a i r s of i d e o l o g i c a l r i v a l s as w e l l : P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e , A p o l l o and D i o n y s i u s , S p i t t e l e r and Goethe as w e l l as s e v e r a l church f a t h e r s . His argument b a s i c a l l y s t a t e d that these two r i v a l r i e s were the consequence of two b a s i c and c o n f l i c t i n g p e r c e p t u a l ways of l o o k i n g at the world or " a t t i t u d e s " and l a b e l l e d them " e x t r a v e r s i o n " and " i n t r o v e r s i o n " . Jung c h a r a c t e r i z e d the e x t r a v e r t e d a t t i t u d e as being a flow of p s y c h i c energy toward the outer world or the o b j e c t . I n t r o v e r s i o n i s c o n v e r s e l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a flow of p s y c h i c energy inward toward the s u b j e c t . Both a t t i t u d e s are p r esent i n each i n d i v i d u a l , but one tends to be dominant and under g r e a t e r c o n s c i o u s c o n t r o l of the ego while the other i s l e s s developed and e x i s t s more as p o t e n t i a l i t y than a c t u a l i t y . Jung found these two a t t i t u d e s to be i n s u f f i c i e n t i n c h a r a c t e r i z i n g the human p e r s o n a l i t y , however, and h y p o t h e s i z e d that two other d i c h o t o m i e s or four " f u n c t i o n s " a l s o e x i s t . Sensing and i n t u i t i o n r e p r e s e n t two dichotomous ways of p e r c e i v i n g the world w h i l e t h i n k i n g and f e e l i n g r e f l e c t opposing ways of j u d g i n g ( e i t h e r l o g i c a l l y and i m p e r s o n a l l y or s u b j e c t i v e l y and a c c o r d i n g to v a l u e s as opposed to l o g i c ) . He b e l i e v e d these p a i r e d f u n c t i o n s to be i n c o m p a t i b l e or m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e . If a person i s d e c i d i n g whether something i s t r u e or f a l s e ( t h i n k i n g ) , then e v a l u a t i o n of i t s r e l a t i v e (25) importance (feeling) must be postponed. Likewise, i f a person i s ascertaining facts (sensation), then i n t u i t i o n (consideration of their p o s s i b i l i t i e s ) will produce inaccuracies. While a l l four functions or ways of being are possible within an indivudual, Jung hypothesized that people tend to prefer either i n t u i t i o n or sensation and either thinking or f e e l i n g . People could then be characterized by types: extraverted or introverted, a thinker or a f e e l e r , a sensor or an i n t u i t o r . When combined with one another, these preferences w i l l provide eight d i f f e r e n t personality types. Jung emphasized that the interaction of these d i f f e r e n t preferences with one another w i l l provide d i f f e r i n g and somewhat predictable personality p r o f i l e s . Table 2.1. Jung's C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Psychological Types. Extraverted Sensing Extraverted Intuition Extraverted Thinking Extraverted Feeling Introverted Sensing Introverted Intuition Introverted Thinking Introverted Feeling According to Jung, i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l prefer certain functions over others, just as they have a preference for either introversion or extraversion. He theorized that one function would be dominant and a second, or a u x i l i a r y , would have a co-determining influence. He saw the secondary function as supplementing the f i r s t . That i s , i f the dominant function was perceptive (either sensing or i n t u i t i n g ) , then the a u x i l i a r y would be one of judgment (either thinking or f e e l i n g ) . While many people have a f a i r l y wel1-developed a u x i l i a r y function, (26) r e l a t i v e l y few have c o n s c i o u s use of a t h i r d f u n c t i o n . The f o u r t h and l e a s t d e v e l o p e d , or the " i n f e r i o r " f u n c t i o n remains u n c o n s c i o u s and p a r t of the "shadow". Jung t h e o r i z e d t h a t the i n f e r i o r f u n c t i o n would be the o p p o s i t e of the dominant f u n c t i o n . In o t h e r words , i f t h i n k i n g i s a person s s u p e r i o r f u n c t i o n , then f e e l i n g would be the i n f e r i o r or f o u r t h f u n c t i o n . There has been a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h done to t e s t J u n g ' s t h e o r y of p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e . A summary of t h e s e e f f o r t s f o i l o w s . Gray and Whee lwright (1944) began i n v e s t i g a t i n g type t h e o r y by f i n d i n g e v i d e n c e of the p a i r i n g of spouses of o p p o s i t e t ypes i n m a r r i a g e . In 1945 they p u b l i s h e d an a r t i c l e s t u d y i n g the i r r a t i o n a l ( s e n s i n g and i n t u i t i o n ) and r a t i o n a l ( t h i n k i n g and f e e l i n g ) f u n c t i o n s . By 1946 they had d e v e l o p e d a 7 5 - i t e m s e l f - r e p o r t i n s t r u m e n t d e s i g n e d to i d e n t i f y p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e . T h e i r s c a l e s measured e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i o n , s e n s a t i o n / i n t u i t i o n , and t h i n k i n g / f e e l i n g . In 1946, i n a s tudy of 200 i n d i v u d u a l s , they found t h a t 54 p e r c e n t were i n t r o v e r t e d and 46 p e r c e n t were e x t r o v e r t e d . Eysenck (1953) found what he c o n s i d e r e d to be a c o n f i r m a t i o n of J u n g ' s a t t i t u d e of e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i on as one of the t h r e e d i m e n s i o n s of p e r s o n a l i t y ( a l o n g wi th n e u r o t i c i s m and p s y c h o t i c i s m i . In a l a t e r s t u d y ( c i t e d i n M a t t o o n , 1981) , Eysenck found ( u s i n g f a c t o r a n a l y s i s ) t h a t e x t r a v e r t s are h i g h on s o c i a b i l i t y and i m p u l v i e n e s s , w h i l e i n t r o v e r t s s c o r e low on t h e s e f a c t o r s . C a r r i g a n (1960) was l e s s c o n v i n c e d , however, t h a t e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i o n i s a b a s i c d i m e n s i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y s t a t i n g , t'hat w h i l e e v i d e n c e was a c c u m u l a t i n g , the " u n i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i o n has not been (27) conclusively demonstrated" (p. 355). Myers provided some ot the f i r s t empirical evidence for Jung s typology by constructing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In an i n i t i a l study (1962b), she used the MBTI to study 8,561 subjects and found 55 percent were extraverted and 45 percent were introverted. These findings were very similar to Gray and Wheelwright's findings over 15 years e a r l i e r and lent further c r e d i b i l i t y to Jung's theories. Since that i n i t i a l study, the MBTI has become the most po s i t i v e endorsement of Jung's type theory to date and has been extensively-used to measure personality type. Bradway (1964) asked 28 Jungian analysts to categories themselves according to Jung's typology and then administered both the Gray-Wheelwright Questionnaire and the MBTI. This validated the extraversion/introversion dimension on both instruments. S i g n i f i c a n t correlations were obtained for the sensation/intuition dimension on both instruments and s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s on the thinking/feeling dimension were obtained from the Gray-Wheelwright Questionnaire. Strieker and Ross (1964) used the MBTI to test Jung's hypotheses that: 1. the attitudes and functions are stable over time and not e a s i l y changed (they found moderate s t a b i l i t y ) ; 2. the attitudes and functions are q u a l i t a t i v e l y dichotomous (scores were not bimodal); 3. the functions and attitudes were interacting (the scales did not i n t e r a c t ) . They therefore concluded that their r e s u l t s offered l i t t l e support for the s t r u c t u r a l properties attributed to the typology by Jung. Gorlow, Simonson, and Krauss (1966) used a Q sort factor analysis in an attempt to v e r i f y Jung's typology. They accounted for 46.03 (28) percent of the total variance by i d e n t i f y i n g six factors which corresponded to Jungian types: 1. extraverted-feeling, 2.introverted thinking, type A, 3. extraverted-thinking, 4. introverted-thinking, type B, 5. extraverted-sensing, 6. e x t r a v e r t e d - i n t u i t i o n . These findings lend support to Jungian theory. Ball (1967) did a factor analysis of extraver si on / introver si on and t h i n k i n g / f e e l i n g . He found six factors which accounted for 42 percent of the total variance a l l of which were defined in terms of E/I, T/F or both. He concluded that the dimensions postulated by Jung were useful in explaining divergent human behaviors by organizing them conceptually. Cook (1970) found support for the extraversion/ introversion factor but l i t t l e v e r i f i c a t i o n of the four functions. H i l l (cited in Mattoon, 1981) investigated whether Jung's eight types would be evident within a sample of variables from instruments considered to be t h e o r e t i c a l l y consistent with Jungian typology. H i l l concluded that six of the eight factors could be interpreted within the Jungian system: i n t u i t i o n vs. thinking, i n t r o v e r s i o n , perceiving introvert vs. perceiving extravert, sensing extravert, f e e l i n g extravert, and thinking. These r e s u l t s offered further limited support for Jung's theory. Steele and Kelly (cited in Mattoon, 1981, p.57) found a high c o r r e l a t i o n between the MBTI and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. . Palmiere (1972) found predictable differences in attitude and behavior between extraverts and introverts using the MBTI and the TAT (Thematic Apperception Test). She found that introverts produce a larger quantity of fantasy than do extraverts. Higher "fantasy scores" (both more words and more ideas) were produced by (29) introverted subjects. Jung theorized that attitude type may have a b i o l o g i c a l foundation. Two studies have indicated that brain function d i f f e r s between introverts and extraverts. Mattoon (1981, p.59) c i t e s an Australian study in which Savage measured brain waves using an EES and found the alpha amplitude of extraverts to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than that of i n t r o v e r t s . Gale, Coles and Blaydon replicated these re s u l t s in 1969 (cited in Mattoon, 1981). McLeod and Bleweitt (cited in Mattoon, 1981) under Eysenck's supervision, found that i d e n t i c a l twins were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a l i k e in extraversion/introversi on (r=.499) than fraternal twins (r=-.331). (These researchers could not find an explanation for the negative c o r r e l a t i o n between fraternal twins except possible measurement error. Mattoon (1981) suggests that fraternal twins may tend to develop d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s in order to d i f f e r e n t i a t e themselves from one another.) Carlson and Levy (1973) examined several s p e c i f i c behaviors with Jungian type theory. They found that introverted thinking types were s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p=<,002) more able to memorize i n t e r i o r i z e d , neutral material while extraverts were s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p=<.002) more accurate in recognizing f a c i a l expression and f i c t i t i o u s proper names. They also found that i n t u i t i v e perceptive types were more accurate in interpreting emotional expression than were sensing judging types. In a f i n a l study, they also found that extraverted i n t u i t i v e s were overrepresented amoung volunteers for social s e r v i c e . These findings c l e a r l y support Jung's theory of psychological types and suggest ways in which his theory can be u t i l i z e d to deepen the understanding of complicated personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Devito (1985), in his review (30) a r t i c l e , pointed out the need tor further research which addresses behavioral v a l i d a t i o n of typological constructs. In one such study, Carskadon (1979) found that those who scored as extraverts on the MBTI were found to exhibit a variety of behaviors i n d i c a t i v e of extraversion (less physical distance, more talkativeness, better r e c a l l of other people's names). While the above mentioned research does not conclusively support Jung's theories, there i s c e r t a i n l y enough supportive evidence to lend respectable c r e d i b i l i t y to his constructs, given both Jung's imprecision in defining his concepts and the d i f f i c u l t y inherent in measuring any theoretical construct. His typology can undoubtedly be used for the purpose for which he formulated i t : It i s not the purpose of a psychological typology to c l a s s i f y human beings into categories...Its purpose i s rather to...make a methodical i n v e s t i -gation and presentation of the empirical material possible...It i s a c r i t i c a l tool for the research worker, who needs d e f i n i t e points of view and guidelines i f he i s to reduce the chaotic profusion of individual experiences to any kind of order. (1921, p.555) The Myers-Briqqs Type Indicator (MBTI) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was the instrument used in t h i s study. The MBTI was developed out of Jung's type theory as interpreted primarily by Isabel Briggs-Myers (Myers & Myers, 1980). It was the result of 20 years of collaboration between Isabel Briggs-Myers and her mother, Katharine C. Briggs. It was introduced in 1962 (Myers, 1962a) and was designed to implement Jung's theory of personality type by sorting people into groups or personality types (31) ( D e v i t o , 1985). It i s c u r r e n t l y the most widely used instrument measuring Jungian t y p o l o g y . The Center f o r A p p l i c a t i o n s of P s y c h o l o g i c a l Type (CAPT) c u r r e n t l y l i s t s n e a r l y 1200 s t u d i e s which have been p u b l i s h e d u s i n g the MBTI f o r r e s e a r c h purposes. Myers o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d and s c a l e d the o r i g i n a l Jungian (Jung, 1923) a t t i t u d e s of e;:traversion (E) and i n t r o v e r s i o n ( I ) , as well as the *our p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n s : s e n s i n g ( S ) , i n t u i t i o n (N), t h i n k i n g (T) and f e e l i n g ( F ) . In a d d i t i o n , Myers added a f o u r t h dimension or " a t t i t u d e " which i s designed to i n d i c a t e whether a person p r e f e r s the p e r c e p t u a l (P) mode (s e n s i n g or i n t u i t i n g ) or the judging (J) modality ( t h i n k i n g or f e e l i n g ) when d e a l i n g with the e x t e r n a l environment. The instrument t h e r e f o r e c o n s i s t s of four s e p a r a t e d i c h o t o m i e s (EI,SN,TF,JP). Given the four d i c h o t o m i e s , 16 d i f f e r e n t f o u r - l e t t e r types are p o s s i b l e . S e e T a b l e 2 . 2 . Table 2.2 Myers' C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 16 P s y c h o l o g i c a l Types. ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ The a d d i t i o n of the JP dimension by Myers expands Jung s o r i g i n a l e i g h t types to 16 and r e p r e s e n t s an e l a b o r a t i o n of Jung's t h e o r y . The JP index i s designed to p r o v i d e a guide to the dominant f u n c t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l . A c c o r d i n g to type theory as i n t e r p r e t e d by Myers, e x t r a v e r t s r e v e a l t h e i r dominant f u n c t i o n when d e a l i n g with the e x t e r n a l environment, w h i l e i n t r o v e r t s r e s e r v e t h e i r dominant f u n c t i o n (32) f o r d e a l i n g with the i n t e r n a l or i n t r a - p s y c h i c world (Myers, 1962b). The JP s c a l e g i v e s the dominant f u n c t i o n of an e x t r a v e r t and the a u x i l i a r y of an i n t r o v e r t . S i n c e the e x t r a v e r t ' s dominant f u n c t i o n p r e f e r s the outer w o r l d , i t w i l l show up on the JP p r e f e r e n c e . The dominant f u n c t i o n does not show up on the JP p r e f e r e n c e f o r i n t r o v e r t s , however. I n t r o v e r t s p r e f e r not to use t h e i r dominant process i n d e a l i n g with the outer w o r l d . The dominant f u n c t i o n i s t h e r e f o r e determined by s i m u l t a n e o u s l y c o n s i d e r i n g the JP and EI p r e f e r e n c e s . The part of Jung's theory r e f e r r i n g to dominant and a u x i l i a r y f u n c t i o n s i s not well developed i n Jung's w r i t i n g s , however, (see M c C a u l l e y , 1981, pp. 301-302) and i s the most c o n t r o v e r s i a l p a r t of Myers' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Jung. D e v i t o (1985) s t a t e s i n h i s review that t h e r e i s c u r r e n t l y no r e s e a r c h which adequately t e s t s the a s s e r t i o n s r e g a r d i n g dominant and a u x i l i a r y f u n c t i o n s . I n f o r m a t i o n gathered from the MBTI data bank (MBTI r e s u l t s scored by CAPT, the Center f o r the A p p l i c a t i o n s of Type) i n d i c a t e s t h a t frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s among the 16 types vary depending upon the p o p u l a t i o n under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . If the 16 types were normally d i s t r i b u t e d i n a g i v e n p o p u l a t i o n , one would expect one s i x t e e n t h or 6.25 percent of the p o p u l a t i o n to f a l l i n each of the 16 t y p e s . Such even d i s t r i b u t i o n s are r a r e (Myers & M c C a u l l e y , 1985). Trends have been found to e x i s t w i t h i n s p e c i f i c p o p u l a t i o n s , von Fange (1961) a d m i n i s t e r e d the MBTI to Canadian school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and found that d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g j u d g i n g types (J) outnumbered p e r c e p t i v e types (P) by 86 percent to 13 p e r c e n t . Cacioppe ( c i t e d i n Myers & M c C a u l l e y , 1985) gave the MBTI to graduate s t u d e n t s i n b u s i n e s s and found 89 percent p r e f e r r i n g t h i n k i n g over f e e l i n g and 69 p e r c e n t p r e f e r r i n g j u d q i n g over p e r c e i v i n g . Simon (1979) i n v e s t i g a t e d p r o f e s s i o n a l f i n e a r t i s t s and found that 91 percent p r e f e r r e d i n t u i t i o n over s e n s i n g and 70 percent scored as f e e l e r s as opposed to t h i n k e r s . Myers and McCaulley (1985) m a i n t a i n that while i n t r o v e r t e d i n t u i t i v e types are r a r e (75 percent of the p o p u l a t i o n i n the U . S . p r e f e r s both ex t r aver s i on and s e n s i n g ) , t h e i r numbers are inore f r e q u e n t at h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s . A g r e a t e r preponderance of i n t u i t i v e s have a l s o been found among c o u n s e l l o r s . In a sample of 359 c o u n s e l l o r s , 67 p e r c e n t were i n t u i t i v e s (33 percent sensing) and 76 percent were f e e l i n g types as opposed to t h i n k i n g t y p e s . T h i s would suggest that i n the present study (which i s c o n f i n e d to C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology graduate s t u d e n t s ) , a h i g h e r preponderance of NF types w i l l be found than would be expected by chance. A f u r t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n s t r u m e n t , i t s s c o r i n g , as well as a review of the l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g with i t s v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y i s found i n Chapter Three. Jungian P e r s o n a l i t y Type and L e a r n i n g Theory I n v e s t i g a t i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i n t a s k - s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s has not been d i r e c t l y undertaken by r e s e a r c h e r s . There i s , however, a growing body of l i t e r a t u r e which i s r e l e v a n t because i t c o r r e l a t e s p e r s o n a l i t y type to p r e f e r r e d l e a r n i n g s t y l e s . A p p l i c a t i o n of the MBTI to l e a r n i n g theory i s a r e l a t i v e l y new f i e l d of s t u d y . Eggins (1979) s t u d i e d the e f f e c t s of t h r e e d i f f e r e n t e d u c a t i o n a l models on 350 s t u d e n t s and c o r r e l a t e d t h e i r s u c c e s s e s with t h e i r ^ p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s . He found t h a t w h i l e S-N types succeeded with a l l t h r e e models, S-P and (34) N-P types were s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by the i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e s i g n . N-P types remembered s i g n i f i c a n t l y more with the model that imposed the l e a s t s t r u c t u r e and allowed i n d i v i d u a l s to d i s c o v e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r t h e m s e l v e s . They remembered s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s when taught with a h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d method. The S-P types were most s u c c e s s f u l with the h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d model which p r o v i d e d c o n c r e t e examples and took advantage of t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n a l s k i l l s . She concluded t h a t the s c a l e s of the MBTI d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t e r a c t with l e a r n i n g outcomes. C o r r e l a t i o n s have been found betwen p e r s o n a l i t y type and p r e f e r r e d l e a r n i n g s t y l e s u s i n g the MBTI. E x t r a v e r t e d - f e e l i n g types have been found to p r e f e r group l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s (McCaulley & N a t t e r , 1974). I n t u i t i v e types p r e f e r s e l f - p a c e d l e a r n i n g and c o u r s e s t h a t a l l o w them to study on t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e ( C a r l s o n Levy, 1973; McCaulley & N a t t e r , 1974). T h i n k i n g types p r e f e r s t r u c t u r e d c o u r s e s with c l e a r g o a l s (Smith, I r e y , & M c C a u l l e y , 1973). These same s t u d i e s found j u d g i n g types p r e f e r r i n g to l e a r n from m a t e r i a l p r e s e n t e d i n an o r d e r l y way w h i l e p e r c e p t i v e types are more l i k e l y to r e p o r t s t a r t i n g too l a t e on a s s i g n m e n t s , l e t t i n g t h e i r work p i l e up and having to cram at the end. Sensing types tend to set modest academic g o a l s f o r themselves ( G r a n t , 1965; McCaulley & N a t t e r , 1974; and Sachs, 1978) and they t r y to meet these g o a l s by p l a n n i n g t h e i r time and working i n a s y s t e m a t i c way (McCaulley & N a t t e r , 1974). I n t r o v e r t s d i d not f i n d l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s u s i n g groups or e x p e r i m e n t a l l e a r n i n g h e l p f u l and were observed by t h e i r peers as not p a r t i c i p a t i n g (Haber, 1980; Kilmann i T a y l o r , 1974). Sensing types p r e f e r mathematics l a b o r a t o r i e s while i n t u i t i v e s p r e f e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l l a b o r a t o r i e s ( G o l l i d a y , 1975). McCaulley and N a t t e r (1974) found that (35) f e e l i n g t ypes are more l i k e l y to r e p o r t i n t e r f e r e n c e with t h e i r s t u d i e s because of t h e i r . s o c i a l l i f e and they p r e f e r group p r o j e c t s to i n d i v i d u a l a ssignments. Judging types were found to work more e f f i c i e n t l y a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r s c h e d u l e s and get t h e i r assignments i n on time (McCaulley fc N a t t e r , 1974). In drawing c o n c l u s i o n s from t h i s growing body of l i t e r a t u r e , Myers and McCaulley (1985) summarize by s t a t i n g t h a t the most s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e a r n i n g s t y l e appear to be between s e n s a t i o n and i n t u i t i v e t y p e s . I n t u i t i v e types p r e f e r l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s where they work with people and where f l e x i b i l i t y and p e r c e p t i o n of nuances i n b e h a v i o r are r e q u i r e d . (ISTJ types c l e a r l y d i s l i k e human r e l a t i o n s t r a i n i n g ) . Sensing t y p e s , on the other hand, appear to l i k e and do b e t t e r i n e d u c a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s t h a t teach content (math and s c i e n c e e s p e c i a l l y ) i n an o r g a n i z e d , h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d and r i g o r o u s way. P e r r y (1975, c i t e d i n Myers & M c C a u l l e y , 1985) found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n type between members of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n who had chosen c l i n i c a l as opposed to e x p e r i m e n t a l c a r e e r s . C l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s ( d e f i n e d i n P e r r y ' s study as p r a c t i o n e r s ) d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n p e r s o n a l i t y type from those i n v o l v e d i n e x p e r i m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g y . ISTP and INTP types made up almost 37% of the e x p e r i m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g i s t sample. These same types comprised OX of the c l i n i c a l p o p u l a t i o n . While 24% of the c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s were INFJ's, t h i s type o n l y comprised 37. of the e x p e r i m e n t a l group. See Table 2.3. (36) T a ble 2.3 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s of Types among C l i n i c a l and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g i s t s Source: I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among S e l e c t e d P e r s o n a l i t y V a r i a b l e s of P s y c h o l o g i s t s and T h e i r P r o f e s s i o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n by H.tf. P e r r y . D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . Notre Dame U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o o . i s t s E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g i s t s E 567. 437. I 44'/. 56% S 47. 337. N 96/i 667. T 247. 67X F 767. 337, J 567. 577. P 447. 43X T h i s study i d e n t i f i e s p e r s o n a l i t y type d i f f e r e n c e s between those who choose to p r a c t i c e p s ychology as opposed to those who choose to r e s e a r c h i t . E s p e c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t are the d i f f e r e n c e s on the SN and TF d i m e n s i o n s . N e a r l y a l l of the c l i n i c i a n s s c o r ed N w h i l e a s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of e x p e r i m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s scored S. A g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of t h i n k i n g types were found i n the e x p e r i m e n t a l group w h i l e t h e r e were more f e e l e r s i n the c l i n i c a l group. C l e a r l y , i t appears t h a t c e r t a i n types of i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l p r e f e r s e l f - d i r e c t e d l e a r n i n g (I) w h i l e o t h e r s r e q u i r e f r e q u e n t i n t e r a c t i o n with o t h e r s (E) i n order to l e a r n s u c c e s s f u l l y . • Mathematical and s c i e n t i f i c a l l y o r i e n t e d p r o j e c t s w i l l appeal to S and T types w h i l e N and F types are more c o m f o r t a b l e i n d e a l i n g with the l e s s exact s c i e n c e s and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , the a r t s . Judging types appear to be b e t t e r at o r g a n i z i n g themselves while p e r c e p t i v e types tend to be more l i k e l y to be l e s s e f f i c i e n t and more spontaneous and open to new p o s s i b i l i t i e s . O b v i o u s l y , these data demonstrate the c o m p l e x i t y of type d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e a r n i n g as well as suggest p o s s i b l e t r e n d s and p a t t e r n s worthy of f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . Jungian Typology and P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n There have been few, i f any, s t u d i e s to date which i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e , much l e s s any r e s e a r c h s p e c i f i c a l l y comparing those who p r o c r a s t i n a t e on t h e i r t h e s i s with those who do not to determine i f they d i f f e r on p e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n s . F u r t h e r m o r e , as was p o i n t e d out e a r l i e r , t h e r e have been no s t u d i e s to date which simply i n v e s t i g a t e the f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n the phenomenon of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the t h e s i s ( r e g a r d l e s s of p e r s o n a l i t y i s s u e s ) . Jungian t h e o r y , however, suggests that a r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n (both as a h a b i t u a l mode of b e h a v i o r and a l s o i n t a s k - s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s ) and p e r s o n a l i t y may-e x i s t . What f o l l o w s i s a summary of the l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g to t h i s argument. Regarding p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a h a b i t u a l mode of b e h a v i o r , Myers and McCaulley (1985) t h e o r i z e t h a t " p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n comes from p e r c e p t i o n with a d e f i c i t of judgment" (p.14) and b e l i e v e that "Extremes i n the p e r c e p t u a l type may show problems r e l a t e d to d i f f u s i o n , d r i f t i n g , p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and c o n f u s i o n over d i r e c t i o n " (p. 70) . G iven J u n g i a n t h e o r y as i n t e r p r e t e d by Myers and M c C a u l l e y , i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e in any a c t i v i t y f i r s t to u t i l i z e e i t h e r S or N to o b s e r v e a s i t u a t i o n and then use a judgment f u n c t i o n (T or F) to d e c i d e on the a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n . Myers and M c C a u l l e y (1985) m a i n t a i n tha t those who s c o r e P on the MBTI tend to remain l o n g e r i n the o b s e r v i n g or p e r c e i v i n g mode, w h i l e j u d g i n g types t y p i c a l l y move more r a p i d l y t h r o u g h p e r c e p t i o n to a c o n c l u s i o n . In an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Myers and M c C a u l l e y ' s t h e o r y , K e i r s e y and Bates m a i n t a i n t h a t p e o p l e "who choose c l o s u r e over open o p t i o n s are l i k e l y to be j u d g i n g types" (1984, p . 2 2 ) . The j u d g i n g type t ends to r e p o r t a sense of urgency u n t i l a pending d e c i s i o n has been made w h i l e a p e r c e i v i n g type w i l l be more l i k e l y to e x p e r i e n c e r e s i s t a n c e to making a d e c i s i o n , e x p r e s s i n g the need for more d a t a . They c o n c l u d e t h a t p e r c e i v e r s are p r o c e s s o r i e n t e d w h i l e j u d g e r s are more outcome o r i e n t e d . S m i t h , I r e y , and M c C a u l l e y (1973) , i n f a c t , found i n t h e i r study-tha t p e r c e p t i v e t y p e s were more l i k e l y to r e p o r t s t a r t i n g too l a t e on a s s i g n m e n t s , l e t t i n g t h e i r work p i l e up and h a v i n g to cram at the end. They a l s o found t h a t j u d g i n g t y p e s tended to work more e f f i c i e n t l y a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r s c h e d u l e s and get t h e i r a s ignments i n on t i m e . These f i n d i n g s l end s u p p o r t to Myers and M c C a u l l e y ' s h y p o t h e s i s . In a d d i t i o n , Myers and M c C a u l l e y (1985) a l s o t h e o r i z e t h a t NFP t y p e s w i l l be e s p e c i a l l y v u l n e r a b l e to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n due to the way they p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n . These p a r t i c u l a r t y p e s appear e s p e c i a l l y prone to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n due to t h e i r poor o r i e n t a t i o n toward t i m e . They tend to l a c k the g r o u n d i n g i n r e a l i t y t h a t e i t h e r s e n s a t i o n or t h i n k i n g would p r o v i d e and t h e i r i n t u i t i v e - f e e l i n g f u n c t i o n s , c o u p l e d with a h igh p e r c e p t i v e s c o r e c r e a t e a d e f i c i t i n p r o c e s s i n g t ime a p p r o p r i a t e l y . Summary. The above l i t e r a t u r e suggests that c e r t a i n p r e d i c t i o n s can be made r e g a r d i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , t h e s i s w r i t i n g and Jungian p e r s o n a l i t t y p e . F i r s t , i t appears r e a s o n a b l e to p r e d i c t that those with s t r o n g P ( p e r c e i v i n g ) s c o r e s w i l l be those i n d i v i d u a l s who tend to p r o c r a s t i n a t e on t h e i r t h e s i s u n t i l the d e a d l i n e becomes a f a c t o r w h i l e those s c o r i n g J ( judging) w i l l n o t . S e c o n d l y , the p r o c r a s t i -n a t i n g group may be composed of a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP t ypes than would be expected by chance. T h i s study t e s t e d the above hypotheses s i n c e very l i t t l e a c t u a l r e s e a r c h has been conducted i n t h i s a r e a . I t s f i n d i n g s are a c o n t r i -b u t i o n to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as well as Jungian theory as i n t e r p r e t e d by Myers and her c o l l e a g u e s . (40) CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY T h i s study examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the tendency to p r o c r a s t i n a t e on w r i t i n g a Master's t h e s i s and Jungian p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e . T h i s chapter i n c l u d e s a d i s c u s s i o n of the sample p o p u l a t i o n , p r ocedures used i n c o l l e c t i n g d a t a , i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n , the hy p o t h e s e s , and the s t a t i s t i c a l t o o l s used f o r data a n a l y s i s . D e s c r i p t i o n and S e l e c t i o n of the Sample F i f t y s u b j e c t s c u r r e n t l y or f o r m e r l y e n r o l l e d i n the Department of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology Masters Program at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . T h i r t y - f o u r of the s u b j e c t s were women and 16 were men. The number of s u b j e c t s e l i g i b l e f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study was i n e v i t a b l y s m a l l , given the d i f f i c u l t y i n h e r e n t i n l o c a t i n g s u b j e c t s who s u c c e s s f u l l y met the e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a . Names of a l l s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n the program from 1978 to 1982 were p r o v i d e d by the C o u n s e l l i n g P sychology Department. [Data were not computerized p r i o r to 1978 and were u n a v a i l a b l e . Students e n r o l l e d a f t e r 1982 were by d e f i n i t i o n i n e l i g i b l e because t h e i r t h e s i s d e a d l i n e (1988) extended beyond the scope of t h i s study ( 1 9 8 7 ) ] . Two l i s t s were generated from these names. One l i s t c o n s i s t e d of 59 i n d i v i d u a l s who completed t h e i r t h e s e s w i t h i n two year s of co m p l e t i n g (41) t h e i r coursework ( p o t e n t i a l n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) . A second l i s t was composed of 71 i n d i v i d u a l s who had taken f i v e y e a r s (or l o n g e r ) to comple te t h e i r t h e s e s ( p o t e n t i a l p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) . J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e s e two p a r t i c u l a r groups i s p r o v i d e d i n the f o l l o w i n q s e c t i o n r e g a r d i n g i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n . I n i t i a l l y , n i n e t y s u b j e c t s (45 from each group) were randomly s o l i c i t e d by mai l from these l i s t s . Appendix A c o n t a i n s the s o l i c i t a t i o n l e t t e r . T h i s l e t t e r was f o l l o w e d up by a phone c a l l two weeks l a t e r . Of the 9 0 i n d i v i d u a l s i n i t i a l l y s o l i c i t e d , 27 had moved and c o u l d not be l o c a t e d , n i n e r e s p o n d e n t s were d i s q u a l i f i e d because they d i d not f i t the n e c e s s a r y c r i t e r i a f o r e i t h e r the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g or n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g g r o u p , and f o u r e i t h e r f a i l e d to f o l l o w -through or d i r e c t l y chose not to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s t u d y . As a s u b j e c t was d i s q u a l i f i e d because of one of the t h r e e r e a s o n s l i s t e d a b o v e , s /he was r e p l a c e d t h r o u g h a random s e l e c t i o n from the r e m a i n i n g names on the a p p r o p r i a t e l i s t . T h i s p r o c e d u r e was c o n t i n u e d u n t i l each group had 25 s u b j e c t s . At t h a t p o i n t , seven of the i n i t i a l 59 i n d i v i d u a l s were l e f t i n the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n q pool and 16 of the 71 i n d i v i d u a l s remained i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g p o o l . P r o c e d u r e s Used i n C o l l e c t i n g Data Those p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the s t u d y were i n d i v i d u a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d the f o l l o w i n g m a t e r i a l s ( a l l of which were c l e a r e d through the U . B . C . E t h i c s Committee) by the r e s e a r c h e r : 1. An i n s t r u c t i o n sheet (Ap'pendix B) , i n d i c a t i n g the manner i n which to p r o c e e d . S u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d to f i r s t s i g n the consent (42) forms (Appendix C ) , f i l l out the demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix D) and then comple te the MBTI per i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s . 2. A demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e 3 . A MBTI b o o k l e t 4. A MBTI computer answer sheet 5. The r e s e a r c h e r s c o r e d the MBTI i m m e d i a t e l y and shared the r e s u l t s wi th them as w e l l as p r o v i d e d them wi th an MBTI r e p o r t f o r m . A l l answer s h e e t s and consent forms were n u m e r i c a l l y coded to p r o t e c t the s u b j e c t s ' i d e n t i t y d u r i n g d a t a a n a l y s i s . I n s t r u m e n t a t i on Two i n s t r u m e n t s were r e q u i r e d f o r t h i s s t u d y : one to measure p e r s o n a l i t y type and one to measure p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . The M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r was the measure used to d e t e r m i n e p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e . A r e v i e w of i t s s c o r i n g , v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y f o l l o w s the d i s c u s s i o n of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . W h i l e the MBTI has been w i d e l y a c c e p t e d f o r use as a measure of J u n g i a n p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e , measurement of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the t h e s i s i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d as t h e r e are c u r r e n t l y few i f any i n s t r u m e n t s i n e x i s t e n c e which a d e q u a t e l y measure t h i s p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o r . As was ment ioned earlier, v e r y l i t t l e s y s t e m a t i c r e s e a r c h on p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n has been c o n d u c t e d to date and v a l i d , r e l i a b l e measures of i t are (as ye t ) u n a v a i l a b l e . As was p o i n t e d out i n C h a p t e r Two, r e s e a r c h e r s have tended to use b e h a v i o r a l d e l a y to measure academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Z i e s a t , (43) R o s e n t h a l , and White (1978) used number of minutes s t u d y i n g to o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . M i l l e r , Weaver, and Semb (1974) measured p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n by c o u n t i n g the number of l e s s o n s completed in s e l f - p a c e d i n s t r u c t i o n c o u r s e s . B l a t t and Q u i n l a n (1967) d i f f e r e n t i a t e d p unctual and p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g s t u d e n t s by a s s e s i n g when w i t h i n a semester they met a p a r t i c u l a r c o u r s e r e q u i r e m e n t . There are o b v i o u s l y problems with these o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s as d e l a y could be e x p l a i n e d by f a c t o r s other than p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . More recent r e s e a r c h has i n c l u d e d s e l f - r e p o r t as well as b e h a v i o r a l d e l a y i n d e f i n i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Solomon and Rothblum (1984) argue that s e l f - r e p o r t i s a c r u c i a l f a c t o r to be i n c l u d e d i n the measurement of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n because i t i s not s i m p l y a b e h a v i o r a l problem. Those who p r o c r a s t i n a t e tend to r e p o r t high l e v e l s of s u b j e c t i v e d i s t r e s s as well as d elayed a c t i o n (Solomon, Murakami, Greenberger, fe Rothblum, 1983; Rothblum, Beswick, fe Mann, 1984; Solomon fe Rothblum, 1984; Rothblum, Solomon, fe Murakami, 1986). Solomon and Rothblum (1984) i n c l u d e d both b e h a v i o r a l measures as w e l l as s e l f - r e p o r t s to d i s t i n g u i s h between p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g s t u d e n t s . They developed a s e l f - r e p o r t i n s t r u m e n t , the P r o c r a s t i n a t i v e Assessment S c a l e - S t u d e n t s (PASS), which asks s u b j e c t s to i n d i c a t e on a 5-point s c a l e the degree to which they p r o c r a s t i n a t e on s p e c i f i c t a s k s (l=never p r o c r a s t i n a t e ; 5=always p r o c r a s t i n a t e ) and the degree to which p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the task was a problem f o r them (t=not a problem; 5=always a p r o b l e m ) . They found s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between s e l f - r e p o r t e d measures of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and b e h a v i o r a l d e l a y . Thus, s u b j e c t s who r e p o r t e d f r e q u e n t l y p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on these t a s k s tended to delay t a k i n g t h e i r (44) q u i z z e s as w e l l . Other s t u d i e s have a l s o tended to c o n f i r m the v a l i d i t y of s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . S e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n has been v a l i d a t e d a g a i n s t delay i n s u b m i t t i n g course assignments (Rothbium, Beswick, ?< Mann, 1984) and delay i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n psychology experiments (Solomon & Rothblum, 1934) as wel 1 . For the purposes of t h i s s t u d y , academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n was measured u s i n g both b e h a v i o r a l d e l a y and s e l f - r e p o r t . S u b j e c t s who completed t h e i r theses w i t h i n two years of c o m p l e t i n g t h e i r coursework and s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as never or almost never having been a problem f o r them were c o n s i d e r e d n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s , on the other hand, were d e f i n e d as those who took the f u l l f i v e years (or l o n g e r ) to complete t h e i r f i n a l papers while s i m u l t a n e o u s l y r e p o r t i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as having always or n e a r l y always been a problem f o r them. T h i s s e l f - r e p o r t measure was u t i l i z e d to screen out other f a c t o r s which might have e x p l a i n e d the b e h a v i o r a l delay such as s e r i o u s i l l n e s s , more thorough i n v e s t i g a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s , e t c . T h i s s a l i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n ( i . e . , time taken to complete the t h e s i s and the s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n ) was d e r i v e d from the demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix D). The r a t i o n a l e f o r the s e l e c t i o n of the MBTI f o r measuring p e r s o n a l i t y type was developed i n Chapter Two. What f o l l o w s i s a d i s c u s s i o n of i t s s c o r i n g , v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . Items and S c o r i n g The MBTI i s int e n d e d f o r normal p o p u l a t i o n s and i s not i n t e n d e d (45) to be a measure of psychopathology l i k e some p e r s o n a l i t y i n s t r u m e n t s . It measures p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions non-judgmental 1y (both p o l a r i t i e s may be viewed as s t r e n g t h s ) . To i d e n t i f y t y p e s , the MBTI uses f o r c e d c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s to i d e n t i f y the four b i - p o l a r p r e f e r e n c e s : e x t r a v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i o n ( E I ) , s e n s i n g - i n t u i t i n g (SN), t h i n k i n g -f e e l i n g (TF) and judgment-perception ( J P ) . The s c o r i n g then generate raw score or p o i n t t o t a l s f o r E, I, S, N, T, F, J , and P and p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e s which are made up of a l e t t e r to i n d i c a t e the d i r e c t i o n of the p r e f e r e n c e and a number i n d i c a t i n g the s t r e n g t h of the p r e f e r e n c e a f t e r a t i e - b r e a k i n g f o r m u l a i s a p p l i e d . Two people both i d e n t i f i e d as ENTJ may have very d i f f e r e n t p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e s . For example, one i n d i v i d u a l might have p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e s of E41, N20, T07 and J l ? w h i l e another c o u l d have E17,N40, T i l and J05. Myers and B r i g g s designed the instrument to i n d i c a t e the f o u r l e t t e r s of p r e f e r e n c e ( i . e . , ENTJ), and c o n s i d e r data on the s t r e n g t h of the p r e f e r e n c e as an i n c i d e n t a l by-product (Wentworth, 1980). Used i n t h i s f a s h i o n , the data w i l l produce dichotomous s c o r e s . T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with the t h e o r y u n d e r l y i n g the MBTI which a s s e r t s that the p r e f e r e n c e r e p r e s e n t s fundamental d i f f e r e n c e s between e x t r a v e r t s and i n t r o v e r t s , f o r i n s t a n c e . Each of the s c a l e s , E I , SN, TF, and JP i s t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r e d to r e f l e c t an u n d e r l y i n g dichotomy. Myers a l s o c r e a t e d a mechanism f o r o b t a i n i n g c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s i s t r e n g t h of p r e f e r e n c e i s c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y or d e s i r a b l e f o r r e s e a r c h . P u t t i n g the midpoint at 100, the p r e f e r e n c e s c a r e vaiue i s s u b t r a c t e d from 100 i f the s c o r e i s E, S, T or J and added to the v a l u e i f the score i s I, N, F or P. Continuous s c o r e s are based on the premise that e x t r a v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i on , f o r example, i s a (46) c o n t i n u o u s , normally d i s t r i b u t e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l dimension. T h i s opposes type theory which sees them as d i c h o t o m i e s . There i s no agreement at present as to the most a p p r o p r i a t e s c o r e s c o n t i n u o u s or dichotomous to use. D e v i t o (1985) sugges t s u s i n g c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s i n r e s e a r c h (to prevent the need f o r freq u e n c y d a t a , l a r g e samples and non-parametric s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s because p a r a m e t r i c s t a t i s t i c s i s p o s s i b l e u s i n g the f o u r c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s ) and the d i c h o t o m i e s and f o u r - l e t t e r types i n c o u n s e l l i n g . For the purposes of t h i s s t u d y , data were a n a l y z e d both ways. The r e a c t i o n to the MBTI r e g a r d i n g i t s v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y has been mixed, but g e n e r a l l y f a v o r a b l e . D e v i t o (1985) i n h i s review suggests t h a t the instrument m e r i t s s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n by p s y c h o l o g i s t s because i t s a t i s f i e s many of the c r i t e r i a of a p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t . In a d d i t i o n , he c o n s i d e r s i t u s e f u l f o r e d u c a t i o n , c o u n s e l l i n g , c a r e e r guidance and r e s e a r c h . The most r e c e n t manual of the MBTI was p u b l i s h e d i n 1985 (Myers it M c C a u l l e y ) . It c i t e s e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h on the c o n s t r u c t i o n , the v a l i d a t i o n , r e l i a b i l i t y and t h e o r e t i c a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s of the i n s t r u m e n t . The MBTI i s c o n s i d e r e d the most p o s i t i v e endorsement of Jung's a t t i t u d e s and f u n c t i o n s t o date ( 6 o s s e , 1978). C a r l y n (1977) reviewed the e x t e n s i v e l i t e r a t u r e on the s t a t i s t i c a l a n y a l y s i s of the MBTI and c i t e s numerous c o r r o b o r a t i o n s of the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the MBTI as i t r e l a t e s to Jungian t y p o l o g y . P r e d i c t i v e V a l i d i t y C a r l y n (1977) found t h a t the MBTI has been shown to have some (47) p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y i n c e r t a i n a r e a s : c h o i c e of major, GPA, drop-out p o t e n t i a l and s p e c i f i c c u r r i c u l u m c h o i c e s . Bradway (1964) asked 28 Jungian a n a l y s t s to c l a s s i f y themselves on E I , SN, and TF. There was 1007. agreement on E I , 687. on SN and 617. on TF between s e l f - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and MBTI s c o r e s . Myers and Davis (1977) s t u d i e d 5355 medical s t u d e n t s and f o l l o w e d them up 12 years l a t e r . They found t h e i r c h o i c e of s p e c i a l t y to be c o n s i s t e n t with e x p e c t a t i o n s from type t h e o r y . The c u r r e n t MBTI Manual (1985) p r e s e n t s f u r t h e r data which i n d i c a t e t h a t s e l f - r a t i n g s of type and the type i n d i c a t e d by the instrument have c l o s e r correspondance than would be expected by chance. It a l s o p r e s e n t s many f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g SN and TF to d i v e r s e v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e s . Conary (1966) found a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between MBTI types and academic achievement. He a l s o concluded that s p e c i f i c MBTI types were found to predominate i n c e r t a i n c u r r i c u l a . S t r i e k e r , S c h i f f m a n , and Ross (1965) a s s e s s e d the a b i l i t y of the MBTI to p r e d i c t freshman year GPA and drop-out p o t e n t i a l . Using the c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e p r o c e d u r e , they found t h a t dichotomous type c a t e g o r i e s had a g r e a t e r p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y than d i d c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s , although both were v a l i d . D e v i t o (1985) c o n c l u d e s i n h i s review that the r e s e a r c h r e l a t i n g type and academic and v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e s i s i n t e r e s t i n g , u s e f u l i n c o u n s e l l i n g , but l e n d s o n l y a s l i g h t e v i d e n c e of v a l i d i t y to the i n s t r u m e n t . Acknowledging t h a t the MBTI i s not intended to be an instrument to p r e d i c t c a r e e r c h o i c e , he suggests u s i n g i t as an adjun c t to a more v a l i d instrument (the Strong Campbell I n t e r e s t Inventory) i f at t e m p t i n g to p r e d i c t v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e or i n t e r e s t . (48) C o n s t r u c t V a l i d i t y There has been e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h i n the area of c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y . In the MBTI Manual (Myers fe M c C a u l l e y , 1985), the r e s u l t s of many s t u d i e s are c i t e d which found c o r r e l a t i o n s between MBTI s c a i e s and other t e s t s . The v a r i a b l e s r e g a r d i n g p e r s o n a l i t y i n the MBTI have been c o r r e l a t e d with p e r s o n a l i t y measures ( A d j e c t i v e Check l i s t , N=152; C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y , N=1218, 713; Comrey P e r s o n a l i t y S c a l e s , N= 139, 102; Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y P r e f e r e n c e Survey, N=236; Emotions P r o f i l e Index, N = 60; Eysenck P e r s o n a l i t y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , N=93; Maudsley P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y , N=52; FIRO-B, N= 100, 200, 100, 1228); Jungian Type Survey, N=47; Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y , N=225; Omnibus P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y , N=484, 648; P e r s o n a l i t y Research I n v e n t o r y , N=507, 722; S t e i n S e l f - D e s c r i p t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , N=34, 41; Brown S e l f - R e p o r t I n v e n t o r y , N=149; S i x t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , N=66, 122, 149, 484, 645; S t a t e - T r a i t A n x i e t y I n v e n t o r y , N=60; Study of V a l u e s , N=1351, 236, 238, 65, 877; Rokeach Dogmatism S c a l e , N=68) , and i n t e r e s t i n v e n t o r i e s ( O p i n i o n , A t t i t u d e , and I n t e r e s t S c a l e s , N=484, 658, 46; Kuder O c c u p a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t S urvey, N=100; Strong-Campbell I n t e r e s t I n v e n t o r y , N=912, 843, 157; H o l l a n d ' s V o c a t i o n a l P r e f e r e n c e I n v e n t o r y , N=405). The manual a l s o c i t e s s t u d i e s which c o r r e l a t e the MBTI with 10 other i n s t r u m e n t s r e l a t e d to e d u c a t i o n (Terman's Concept Mastery T e s t , Kolb L e a r n i n g S t y l e I n v e n t o r y , R o t t e r ' s I n t e r n a l - E x t e r n a l Locus of C o n t r o l , f o r example). Randomly choosing t h r e e of the above-mentioned s t u d i e s , one f i n d s <49) the f o l l o w i n g c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s . In a study c o r r e l a t i n g the P e r s o n a l i t y Research Inventory (N=507), s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found between t a l k a t i v e n e s s and e x t r a v e r s i o n (.70), t o l e r a n c e f o r c o m p l e x i t y and i n t u i t i o n (.34) and p e r c e p t i o n (.47). G r e g a r i o u s n e s s c o r r e l a t e d with e x t r a v e r s i o n (.22) and s e n s a t i o n (.31). A t t i t u d e toward work c o r r e l a t e d with t h i n k i n g (.22) and with judgment (.36). In a l l , s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s (above .20 at the .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e or g r e a t e r ) were found on 16 out of the 25 P.R.I, s c a l e s . C o r r e l a t i o n s between the Jungian Type Survey (N=47), an instrument designed to measure the same Jungian f u n c t i o n s as the MBTI (except f o r J P ) , are moderately high and s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (E .68, p <. 01; I .66, p<.01; S .54, p<.01; N .47, p<.01; T .33, p<.01; and F .23, p<.05). F i v e s t u d i e s (with N's r a n g i n g from 65 to 1351) c o r r e l a t e d the MBTI with the A l l p o r t - V e r n o n - L i n d s e y Study of V a l u e s . S i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found on a l l s i x s c a l e s . F c o r r e l a t e d with the r e l i g i o u s s c a l e (.38) and the s o c i a l s c a l e (.38). E and S c o r r e l a t e d with the p o l i t i c a l s c a l e (.26 & .29). I, N and P c o r r e l a t e d with the a e s t h e t i c s c a l e (.25, .50, .45). E, S and T c o r r e l a t e d with the economic s c a l e (.22, .58, .39). N and T c o r r e l a t e d with the t h e o r e t i c a l s c a l e (.28 and .42 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . While the above c o r r e l a t i o n s are moderate at b e s t , they are a l l i n the d i r e c t i o n one would expect i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the MBTI. Given the d e f i n i t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t s , one would expect E and S to c o r r e l a t e with A l l p o r t ' s p o l i t i c a l s c a l e , f o r i n s t a n c e , s i n c e they a l l manifest an i n t e r e s t i n people and working with f a c t s . These c o r r e l a t i o n s t h e r e f o r e p r o v i d e some ev i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the MBTI. Mendelsohn (1965) supported the v a l i d i t y of the MBTI and s t a t e d (50) i t was c a p a b l e of being a b l e to r e l a t e m e a n i n g f u l l y to a l a r g e number of v a r i a b l e s : p e r s o n a l i t y , i n t e r e s t , a b i l i t y , v a l u e s , academic c h o i c e s , b e h a v i o r r a t i n g s and performance measures. Grant (1965) found t h a t summary d e s c r i p t i o n s compiled from 1413 freshmen r e g a r d i n g t h e i r b e h a v i o r s and a t t i t u d e s were s i m i l a r to the d e s c r i p t i o n s of type found i n the 1962 MBTI Manual. C a r l y n (1977), i n h i s review a r t i c l e , d i s c u s s e s numerous s t u d i e s which support the v a l i d i t y of each p r e f e r e n c e when c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y . Ross (1966) c o r r e l a t e d the MBTI with a b a t t e r y of 32 t e s t i n s t r u m e n t s (10 s c a l e s from a p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r y , 15 a b i l i t y t e s t s and seven i n t e r e s t t e s t s ) . He concluded that the MBTI s c a l e s were l i n k e d with the v a r i a b l e s of p e r s o n a l i t y , a b i l i t y and i n t e r e s t . He a l s o m a i n t a i n e d , however, that the s c a l e s r e f l e c t s u r f a c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r a t h e r than t y p o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Myers and B r i g g s , however, have not claimed that item content r e f l e c t s the c o n s t r u c t s t h e m s e l v e s . T h e i r i n t e n t , r a t h e r , was to develop q u e s t i o n s which would "be the straws t h a t t e s t the wind, not a measure of the wind i t s e l f " (Wentworth, 1980, p.67). Webb (1964) found r e l a t i v e independence between dichotomous type dimensions used by Myers. S t r i e k e r and Ross (1964) contend that the content of items used f o r SN and TF s c a l e s appear to be c o n s i s t e n t with Jung's c o n c e p t u a l d e f i n i t i o n s , but EI and JP may measure something other than the d e f i n i t i o n s suggested by Myers. Carskadon (1979) found a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between those measuring E on the MBTI and s e v e r a l b e h a v i o r a l i n d i c a t o r s of e x t r a v e r s i o n . D e v i t o (1985) e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y echoes C a r l s o n and Levy (1973) who recommend f u r t h e r b e h a v i o r a l s t u d i e s to v a l i d a t e t y p o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s . In c o n c l u s i o n , MBTI s c o r e s do appear to c o r r e l a t e i n the expected (51) d i r e c t i o n s with other i n s t r u m e n t s t h a t ' appear to be t a p p i n g the same c o n s t r u c t s . Re I i a b i 1 i ty S p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t i e s r e p o r t e d f o r the MBTI y i e l d r e s p e c t a b l e r e s u l t s f o r a p e r s o n a l i t y i n s t r u m e n t . In c o l l e g e student samples, Myers (1962b) r e p o r t e d s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t i e s r a n g i n g from .71 to .88 f o r E I , .80 to .90 f o r SN, .68 to .86 f o r TF and .80 to .87 f o r JP. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , she found lower r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r u n d e r - a c h i e v i n g j u n i o r high school s t u d e n t s : .60 to .80 f o r E I , .59 to.75 f o r SN, .19 to .57 f o r TF and .62 to .81 f o r JP. She e x p l a i n s t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y by n o t i n g that r e l i a b i l i t y s c o r e s are a f u n c t i o n of how c l e a r the s u b j e c t s are r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s . C l a r i t y i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g (between T and F) can be the l a t e s t t o develop and i s more l i k e l y to be confused i n people o p e r a t i n g below t h e i r p o t e n t i a l . S t r i e k e r and Ross (1963) r e p o r t e d Alpha r e l i a b i l i t i e s of c o l l e g e and high school samples. These ranged from .76 to .83 f o r E I , .74 to .80 f o r SN, .64 to .74 f o r TF and .78 to .84 f o r JP. They contended that these r e l i a b i l i t i e s were comparable to those of b e t t e r known i n s t r u m e n t s with l o n g e r s c a l e s . Mendelsohn (1970) s t a t e d t h a t t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y e v i d e n c e f o r the MBTI i s weak. Myers (1962b) a g r e e d , and maintained t h a t l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s i n p a r t i c u l a r were needed. S i n c e that t i m e , Carskadon (1977), C a r l y n (1977), Levy, Murphy, and C a r l s o n (1972) have a l l p u b l i s h e d t e s t - r e t e s t s t u d i e s . McCaulley (1978) summarized s i x d i f f e r e n t samples whose test-re.te"st r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranged from .75 to .83 f o r E I , .6? to .83 f o r SN, .56 to .78 f o r TF and .64 to .87 f o r JP. The per c e n t r e p o r t i n g the same l e t t e r p r e f e r e n c e s i n four of these ranged from 74 to 84 percent f o r E I , 70 to 88 percent f o r SN, 73 to 90 percent f o r TF and 66 to 76 percent f o r JP. People r e p o r t i n g a l l f o u r l e t t e r s the same was 31 to 47 per c e n t and t h r e e or a l l four the same was from 60 to 88 p e r c e n t . Howes and Carskadon (1979) found t h a t when changes i n type o c c u r r e d , i t was u s u a l l y o n l y i n one p r e f e r e n c e and that p r e f e r e n c e had been weak on the o r i g i n a l s c o r e s . T e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of males on TF appears to be the l e a s t s t a b l e ( D e v i t o , 1985). In summary, the ge n e r a l consensus i s that the MBTI performs about as well as most other p e r s o n a l i t y i n s t r u m e n t s . It appears to i d e n t i f y -a d e q u a t e l y the s t r e n g t h of p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions t h a t correspond to Jung 's t y p o l o g y . Research D e s i g n . Hypotheses and Data A n a l y s i s Two groups of i n d i v i d u a l s those who p r o c r a s t i n a t e d w h i l e w r i t i n g t h e i r t h e s e s (25 s u b j e c t s ) and those who d i d not p r o c r a s t i n a t e (25 s u b j e c t s ) were compared i n t h i s study to determine i f they d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e . These s u b j e c t s were a d m i n i s t e r e d the MBTI and t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y type was determined u s i n g both dichotomous and c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s . As was d i s c u s s e d i n Chapters One and Two, one might expect d i f f e r e n c e s between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the J u d g i n g / P e r c e i v i n g dimension of the MBTI. The l i t e r a t u r e d i d not suggest that one would expect d i f f e r e n c e s between these two groups on (53) the o t h e r t h r e e d i m e n s i o n s . As a c o n s e q u e n c e , the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses were t e s t e d : 1. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the E x t r a v e r s i o n / I n t r o v e r s i o n cont inuum of the MBTI. 2. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the S e n s a t i o n / I n t u i t i o n cont inuum of the MBTI. 3. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the T h i n k i n g / F e e l i n g cont inuum of the MBTI. 4. The p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l t end to s c o r e c l o s e r to the P e r c e p t i o n end of the cont inuum of the MBTI than the n o n -p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s who w i l l tend to s c o r e c l o s e r to the J u d g i n g end of the c o n t i n u u m . These f o u r h y p o t h e s e s were t e s t e d u s i n g a t - t e s t and the c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s of the MBTI. P r o b a b i l i t y was se t at the c o n v e n t i o n a l l y a c c e p t e d .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . In t h i s d e s i g n , p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s r e p r e s e n t e d the independent v a r i a b l e s . The dependent v a r i a b l e s were the E I , SN, T F , and JP d i m e n s i o n s of the MBTI. 5. There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP types i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than i n the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g g r o u p . It was sugges ted i n C h a p t e r s One and Two t h a t a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of NFP t y p e s might be found i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g g r o u p . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was t e s t e d by u s i n g d ichotomous s c o r e s and a c h i square a n a l y s i s to i n v e s t i g a t e the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s w i t h i n the two g r o u p s . The c h i square a n a l y s i s was a l s o u t i l i z e d to e x p l o r e (54) the d i s t r i b u t i o n of types w i t h i n the two groups to determine i f other d i f f e r e n c e s might e x i s t which have not been p r e d i c t e d by the r e s e a r c h to date, (55) CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS The r e s u l t s of t h i s study are d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s : demographic d a t a , r e s u l t s of hy p o t h e s e s , and type d i s t r i b u t i o n d a t a . Demographic Data F i f t y s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . T h i r t y - f o u r of the s u b j e c t s were women and 16 were men. A l l were graduate s t u d e n t s e i t h e r c u r r e n t l y or f o r m e r l y e n r o l l e d i n the Department of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology Masters Program at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columia. A l l were admitted to the program between the years 1978 and 1982. These s u b j e c t s were randomly s o l i c i t e d i n s t e p s by mail from two l i s t s : one c o n s i s t i n g of p o t e n t i a l p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s (N=71), and one co m p r i s i n g t h e i r n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g c o u n t e r p a r t s (N=59). These l i s t s were p r o v i d e d by the Department of C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . Of the 90 s u b j e c t s who were i n i t i a l l y s o l i c i t e d , 27 had moved and co u l d not be l o c a t e d . Nine respondents were d i s q u a l i f i e d because they d i d not f i t the ne c e s s a r y c r i t e r i a f o r e i t h e r the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g or n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group, and four e i t h e r f a i l e d to f o l l o w through or d i r e c t l y chose not to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s t u d y . As s u b j e c t s were e l i m i n a t e d f o r the above r e a s o n s , a d d i t i o n a l s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d (56) randomly from the remaining pool u n t i l each group had 25 s u b j e c t s . When a t o t a l number of 50 was a c h i e v e d , seven of the i n i t i a l 59 remained i n the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g pool and 16 remained i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g p o o l . The p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group (N=25) c o n s i s t e d of 17 females and 8 males. The mean number of years taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s w i t h i n t h i s group was 5.88 and ranged from 5 years to 8 years (S.D.=.971). Of the 29 i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s study who f i t the e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a of t a k i n g f i v e - p l u s years to complete t h e i r t h e s e s , f o u r were e l i m i n a t e d because they d i d not r e p o r t always or n e a r l y always p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . (One i n d i v i d u a l took 8 y e a r s and s e l f - r e p o r t e d almost never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g ; 1 s u b j e c t took 6 y e a r s and s e l f - r e p o r t e d sometimes p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g ; 2 s u b j e c t s took 5 years and r e p o r t e d sometimes p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g ) . Of the r e m aining 25 s u b j e c t s , 9 r e p o r t e d always p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and 16 s e l f - r a t e d themselves as n e a r l y always p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , none r e p o r t e d never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . The n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group (N=25) c o n s i s t e d of 8 males and i7 f e m a l e s . The mean number of y e a r s taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s i n t h i s group was 1.474 years (SD=.497) and ranged from 9 months to 2 y e a r s . F i v e of the 30 s u b j e c t s i n i t i a l l y i n v o l v e d i n the study were e l i m i n a t e d because they f a i l e d to r e p o r t never or almost never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . These f i v e i n d i v i d u a l s s e l f - r e p o r t e d sometimes p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . Of the r e m aining 25 i n d i v i d u a l s , 11 r e p o r t e d almost never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and 14 r e p o r t e d never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , none of the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s s e l f - r a t e d themselves as always or n e a r l y always p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . While t h e r e were no r e l i a b i l i t y nor v a l i d i t y s t u d i e s done on the (57) measure of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n used f o r t h i s s t u d y , i t was assumed t h a t combining s e l f - r e p o r t with b e h a v i o r a l d e l a y would be an adequate measure. Using the Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , t h i s study d i d i n f a c t f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and time taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s . (r= .7725, p<.05). Table 4.1 below v i s u a l l y r e p r e s e n t s the s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of both groups. Table 4.1 S e l f - R e p o r t e d P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of the P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Groups P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group (N=29) Never Almost Never X Somet imes XXX Ne a r l y Always XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Always XXXX XXXX X X= 1 s u b j e c t Mean no. of y r s . t o w r i t e t h e s i s : 5.88 Never XXXX XXXX XXXX XX Almost Never XXXX XXXX XXX N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group (N=30) Sometimes N e a r l y Always  1Always XXXX X X= 1 s u b j e c t Mean no. of y r s . to w r i t e t h e s i s : 1.474 A c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s was performed to determine i f any d i f f e r e n c e s between gender e x i s t e d between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . No d i f f e r e n c e s were found [ J t^llls 0)] i n d i c a t i n g (58) that gender was not a f a c t o r between the two groups. A c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s of gender and p e r s o n a l i t y type (using dichotomous s c o r e s on the MBTI) found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t r i b u t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y types between the two gender groups as well C7C**"<11)=13. 16, p= .28]. A t - t e s t ( t w o - t a i l e d ) was c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g the co n t i n u o u s s c o r e ; of the MBTI to determine i f d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between males and females on the four i n d i c e s ( E I , SN, TF, J P ) . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found on the E x t r a v e r s i o n / I n t r o v e r s i o n s c a l e Ct(48)= -0.28, p =.78 ]; the Sensation/1 n t u i t i o n s c a l e Ct<48)= -.58, p = .5651; or the J u d g i n g / P e r c e i v i n g s c a l e Ct(48)= -1.57, p =. 123]. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , however, were found on the T h i n k i n g / F e e l i n g index Ct (21.34)= -2. 74, p= .0121. T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t the males i n the study tended to s c o r e T ( t h i n k i n g ) w h i l e the females tended to s c o r e toward the F ( f e e l i n g ) end of the continuum. T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with f i n d i n g s by other r e s e a r c h e r s (MyersSt M c C a u l l e y , 1985) who use t h i s instrument and c o n s e q u e n t l y l e n d s f u r t h e r v a l i d i t y to the MBTI. R e s u l t s of Hypotheses A t - t e s t (two t a i l e d ) was performed u s i n g the cont i n u o u s s c o r e s of the MBTI to t e s t the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses: 1. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the E x t r a v e r s i o n / I n t r o v e r s i o n continuum of the MBTI. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was accepted and the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was not r e j e c t e d . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between the (59) p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group on t h i s dimension Et(48)= .55, p= .5863. 2. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the S e n s a t i o n / I n t u i t i o n continuum of the MBTI. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was accepted and the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was not r e j e c t e d . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between the two groups on t h i s dimension Ct(48)= 1 . 53, p= .133]. 3. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the T h i n k i n g / F e e l i n g continuum of the MBTI. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was accepted and the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was not r e j e c t e d . No d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups were found on t h i s dimension Ct(48)= 1.18, p= .245]. 4. The p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group w i l l tend to s c o r e c l o s e r to the P e r c e i v i n g end of the continuum of the MBTI than the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group who w i l l tend to score near the Judging end of the continuum. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was a c c e p t e d . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the J u d g i n g / P e r c e i v i n g index with p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s t e n d i n g to score P and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s t e n d i n g to s c o r e J [t(46.86)= 2.79, p= .0.08). A c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s u s i n g dichotomous s c o r e s was conducted to determine the f i n a l h y p o t h e s i s : 5. There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP types i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than i n the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group. H y p o t h e s i s accepted [ t l ! l ) = 9.82, p= .0017]. It was p r e d i c t e d i n hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 t h a t no d i f f e r e n c e s would be found on the E I , SN, and TF s c a l e s between the two groups. (60) D i f f e r e n c e s were p r e d i c t e d , however, on the JP i n d e x . The t - t e s t conducted confirmed a l l four h y potheses. Table 4.2 below summarizes the r e s u l t of the f i r s t f o ur hypotheses t e s t e d . Table 4.2 t - t e s t Comparison of P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Groups on Continuous Dimensions Var i abl e Group Number Mean t value p_ d i f f' EI P r o c r a s t . 25 105.64 N o n - P r o c r a s t . 25 101.48 SN P r o c r a s t . 25 129.88 N o n - P r o c r a s t . 25 120.92 TF P r o c r a s t . 25 108.12 N o n - P r o c r a s t . 25 102.44 JP P r o c r a s t . 25 112.36 N o n - P r o c r a s t . 25 91.16 0.55 0.586 no 1.50 0.133 no 1.18 0.245 no 79 0.008 yes A c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s which compared the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g groups a c c o r d i n g to p e r s o n a l i t y type was conducted to determine i f the d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i s t r i b u t i o n between these two groups was s i g n i f i c a n t . A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found: y*- (11) = 22.53, p= .02, although any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s from t h i s must be made c a r e f u l l y g i v e n the s m a l l sample s i z e i n v o l v e d . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h had suggested t h a t NFP types might tend to p r o c r a s t i n a t e more than other p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s . (61) H y p o t h e s i s 5 p r e d i c t e d t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP types would be found i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than i n the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was a l s o c o n f i r m e d . No d i f f e r e n c e s were found between ENFP's and INFP's i n the two groups s u g g e s t i n g that the E x t r a v e r s i o n / I n t r o v e r s i o n index i s not a r e l e v a n t -f a c t o r between the two groups [JC*"U)=0.0, p = 1.0]. When ENFP's and INFP's were combined, however, and then compared with a l l the other types i n a c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s , s i g n i f i c a n t l y more NFP's were found i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group [ T fl( l ) = 9 . 8 2 , p = .0017]. See Table 4.3. Tab 1e 4.3 C h i - s q u a r e Comparison of NFP's between P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s Others I&ENFP Raw T o t a l P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s N=8 Exp.Val.=14 Row P e t . =327. C o l . P e t . =28. 6/. T o t a l Pet.=16% N=17 Exp.Val.=11 Row Pe t . =68'/. Col.Pet.=77.3"/. T o t a l Pet.=347. 507. Non-P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s N=20 Exp.Val.=14 Row Pet.=80% C o l . P e t . =71. 47. T o t a l Pet.=407. N = 5 Exp.Val.=11 Row Pe t . =207. Col.Pet.=22.7% T o t a l Pet.=107. 25 507. Column T o t a l 28 567. 447. 50 1007. (62) Type D i s t r i b u t i o n T a b l e s The f o l l o w i n g T a b l e s (4.4, 4 . 5 , 4 .6 and 4 .7 ) i l l u s t r a t e g r a p h i c a l l y the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y type between the two groups u s i n g the d ichotomous s c o r e s of the MBTI. T a b l e 4.4 P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s Compared A c c o r d i n g to D i s t r i b u t i o n by Type . ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP I NFP INTP N = 0 N = 0 N=l N = 3 N=0 N = 0 N = 9 N = 0 EV = 0 EV=.5 EV=2.5 EV = 2 EV = 0 EV = 0 EV = 6 EV=1 PRO GRR 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.0% 0.0% N = J- vJ 0.0% 0.0% 20. 0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18% 0. 0% N = 0 N=l N = 4 N=l N = 0 N = 0 N = 3 N = 2 EV = 0 EV=.5 EV=2.5 EV = 2 EV = 0 EV = 0 EV = 6 EV = 1 N-P GRP 0.0% 4.0% 16.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 8.07. N = 25 0.0% 100% 80. 0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100% 0.0% 2.0% 8.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 4.0% ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ N=l N=0 N = 8 N=l N = 0 N=l N=l N = 0 EV=.5 EV = 0 EV = 5 EV=1.5 EV=1.5 EV=.5 EV=2.5 EV=1.5 PRO GRP 4.0% 0.0% 32.0% 4.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 0.0 % N = 25 100% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 1007. 20. 0% 0. 0% 2.0% 0.0% 16.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 20.0% 0.0% N=0 N=0 N = 2 N = 2 N = 3 N=0 N = 4 N = 3 EV=.5 EV=0 EV = 5 EV=1.5 EV=1.5 EV=.5 EV=2.5 EV=1.5 N-P GRP 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 8.0% 12.0% 0.0% 16.0% 12.0% N = 25 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 66.7% 100% 0.0% 80. 0% 1007. 0. 0% 0. 07. 4.0% 4.0% 6.0% 0.0% S.0% 6.0% PRO GRP= P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group N-P GRP= N o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group N= Number EV= E x p e c t e d V a l u e based on g i v e n d i s t r i b u t i o n of the da ta Row % Column % T o t a l % (63) T a b l e 4 .5 Compar i son of P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s (N=25) and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s (N=25) a c c o r d i n g to J u n g i a n P e r s o n a l i t y Type . (X= P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ; 0= Non-P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) Number 10 9 X X 8 X X 7 X X 6 x X 5 X X 4 0 V A 0 X 3 0 X X 0 0 X X 0 ^ 0 X X 0 0 0 X X 0 0 1 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 0 o X 0 X 0 X 0 0 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X o X 0 ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP INFP INTP 10 9 8 X X 7 X X 6 X X 5 X X 4 X 0 X 0 T .J X 0 o o X 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 1 X X o X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0 X X 0 X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0 0 X 0 X 0 X o X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ (64) T a b l e 4 .6 M y e r s - B r i g g s Type T a b l e D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sample P o p u l a t i o n [P= P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group (N=25); NP= N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group (N=25); x = 17. of t o t a l sample (N=50)l SENSATION TYPES INTUITIVE TYPES WITH THINKING WITH FEELING WITH FEELING WITH THINKING ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ INTROVERTED P=0 JUDGING NP=0 P = 0 NP = 1 x>: P=l NP = 4 X X X X X XXXX X P=3 NP=1 X X X >! X ;•: >: x ISTP ISFP INFP INTP INTROVERTED PERCEPTIVE P = 0 NP = 0 P = 0 NP = 0 P = 9 NP = 3 XXX XX xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx XXXX P = 0 NP=2 XXXX ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP EXTRAVERTED PERCEPTIVE P=l NP = 0 xx P=0 NP=0 P = 8 NP=2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx p=i NP=2 xxxxx X ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ EXTRAVERTED JUDGING P=0 NP-3 P = l NP=0 P = l NP = 4 P = 0 NP = ; (65) Table 4.7 Data from Sample P o p u l a t i o n Regarding D i s t r i b u t i o n of Type on Each MBTI Index. T o t a l Sample(N=50) Index Number Percent Ex t r a v e r t s 26 527. I n t r o v e r t s 24 48% Sensors 6 127. I n t u i t o r s 44 887. T h i n k e r s 16 327. F e e l e r s 34 687. Judgers 22 447. P e r c e i v e r s 28 567. P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group (N=25) N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group (N=25) Index Number 7. of group Number 7. of group E x t r a v e r t s 12 487. 14 56% I n t r o v e r t s 13 52% 11 44% Sensors 2 8% 4 167. I n t u i t o r s 23 92% 21 84% T h i n k e r s 5 20% 11 44% F e e l e r s 20 80% 14 56% Judgers 6 . 24% 16 64% P e r c e i v e r s 19 76% 9 36% C o n c l u s i on The r e s u l t s from t h i s study found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y type between the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g g roups. Judgers were l e s s l i k e l y to be p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w h i l e the p e r c e i v e r s tended to be p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . A high p r o p o r t i o n of NFP types belonged to the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group wh i l e a more normal d i s t r i b u t i o n was found among the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . (66) CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS, LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Th i s chapter c o n t a i n s two major s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n d i s c u s s e s the r e s u l t s of the s t u d y . The second s e c t i o n c o v e r s l i m i t a t i o n s df the study and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . D i s c u s s i o n of the R e s u l t s Overview T h i s study s major o b j e c t i v e was to determine i f p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t e x p l o r e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the tendency to p r o c r a s t i n a t e on w r i t i n g a Master's t h e s i s and Jungian p e r s o n a l i t y type as measured by the MBTI. Two groups were compared to determine i f d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y type c o u l d be found between those who p r o c r a s t i n a t e d i n w r i t i n g t h e i r t h e s i s and those who d i d n o t . T h i s study sought to t e s t two s p e c i f i c and c u r r e n t l y u n t e s t e d t h e o r i e s r e g a r d i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and Jungian p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e . L i t e r a t u r e has suggested (see Chapters One and Two) that p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s might be i n v o l v e d i n the tendency to p r o c r a s t i n a t e . Myers and McCaulley (1985) have h y p o t h e s i s e d t h a t p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s would d i f f e r from n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on one s p e c i f i c index of the MBTI: the ( 6 7 ) . i u d g i n g - p e r c e i v i n g s c a l e with p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s t e n d i n g to be the p e r c e i v e r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s the j u d g e r s . They based t h i s h y p o t h e s i s on the assumption that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n o c c u r s when i n d i v i d u a l s r e l y h e a v i l y on t h e i r p e r c e p t u a l mode at the expense of t h e i r judgment or d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a t t i t u d e . T h i s study s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed t h i s t heory by comparing p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and non-p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on a l l four of the MBTI's i n d i c e s to see i f d i f f e r e n c e s d i d o c c u r . It was p r e d i c t e d that t h e r e would be no d i f f e r e n c e on the f i r s t t h r e e i n d i c e s ( e x t r a v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i on , s e n s a t i o n - i n t u i t i o n , t h i n k i n g - f e e l i n g ) but that p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s would sc o r e P and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s would s c o r e J on the j u d g i n g -p e r c e i v i n g i n d e x . S e c o n d l y , the study e x p l o r e d the d i s t r i b u t i o n of types to see i f a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n c l u s t e r i n g o c c u r r e d between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . It was h y p o t h e s i s e d that a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP types might be found i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group as opposed to the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group. T h i s p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n a l i t y type appears to have a p o o r l y d e f i n e d o r i e n t a t i o n toward time and hence might be v u l n e r a b l e to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Demographic Data Regarding Sample The above o b j e c t i v e s were addressed by a d m i n i s t e r i n g the MBTI to two groups of s u b j e c t s and then comparing t h e i r s c o r e s . These two groups were r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous. A l l s u b j e c t s i n both groups were graduate s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n the C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology Department at (68) the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. An equal number of males and females were r e p r e s e n t e d i n each group. No d i f f e r e n c e s were found between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s r e g a r d i n g gender s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t was not a r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e i n t h i s s t u d y . The one v a r i a b l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g them was the p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n f a c t o r . One group, o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s , c o n s i s t e d of those i n d i v i d u a l s who took at l e a s t f i v e years to w r i t e t h e i r t h e s e s and s e l f - r e p o r t e d always or n e a r l y always p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on t h i s p r o j e c t . T w e n t y - f i v e i n d i v i d u a l s made up t h i s group. The mean number of years taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s was 5.88 and ranged from f i v e to e i g h t y e a r s . The second group, o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s , were 25 s u b j e c t s who completed t h e i r t h e s e s w i t h i n two years and r e p o r t e d never or almost never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on t h i s p r o j e c t . The mean number of years taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s f o r t h i s group was 1.474 years and ranged from nine months to two y e a r s . The t o t a l sample (both groups combined) had an a p p r o x i m a t e l y equal number of i n t r o v e r t s (487.) and e x t r a v e r t s (527.) and a s l i g h l y h i g h e r percentage of p e r c e i v e r s (567.) than j u d g e r s (447.). There was a much higher percentage of i n t u i t o r s (887.) than s e n s o r s (127.). There were more f e e l i n g types (68%) than t h i n k e r s (327.) with more males p r e f e r r i n g t h i n k i n g and more females p r e f e r r i n g f e e l i n g (as i s almost always the case with MBTI s a m p l e s ) . T h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t with f i n d i n g s i n other s t u d i e s which have measured the p e r s o n a l i t y -t ypes of c o u n s e l l o r s . C o u n s e l l o r s tend to be high on the N and F dimensions with more or l e s s equal r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on the E-I and J-P i n d i c e s . These f i n d i n g s lend f u r t h e r v a l i d i t y to the MBTI as well as (69) c r e d i b i l i t y to t h i s s t u d y . Measuring P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Measuring p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n was somewhat p r o b l e m a t i c as t h e r e i s no instrument to date which i s widely accepted as a v a l i d and r e l i a b l e measure of t h i s b e h a v i o r . T h i s s t u d y , t h e r e f o r e , combined time taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s with s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i n or d e r to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s from the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h e r e was a high p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between time taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s and s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n or lac k t h e r e o f (r= .7725, p<.05). Nine i n d i v i d i u a l s d i d not meet both c r i t e r i a ( i . e . , t h e i r s e l f - r e p o r t d i d not c o r r e l a t e with time taken) and they were, t h e r e f o r e , screened out of the study e n s u r i n g that those i n the study were c l e a r l y e l i g i b l e f o r one of the two groups. F i n d i n g s of the Study The f i r s t f o u r hypotheses were i n t e n d e d to f i n d i f t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the fo u r i n d i c e s of the MBTI. It was h y p o t h e s i z e d that d i f f e r e n c e s would be found on the p e r c e i v i n g - j u d g i n g index o n l y . T h i s was conf i rmed. Hy p o t h e s i s 1: R e s u l t . There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the e x t r a v e r s i o n -i n t r o v e r s i o n index of the MBTI. H y p o t h e s i s i s accepted and the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s not r e j e c t e d . (70) Pi s c u 5 5 i on . When t h e s e two groups were compared on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r d i m e n s i o n , no d i f f e r e n c e s were f o u n d . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t n e i t h e r e x t r a v e r t s nor i n t r o v e r t s appear to be more l i k e l y to p r o c r a s t i n a t e than the o t h e r . T h i s f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t wi th Myers and M c C a u l l e y ' s t h e o r y as i t does not sugges t t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s s h o u l d e x i s t an t h i s d i m e n s i o n . E x t r a v e r i o n - i n t r o v e r s i a n was not found to be a p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r i n v o l v e d i n p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . H y p o t h e s i s 2: R e s u l t . There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the s e n s a t i o n - i n t u i t i o n index of the MBTI. Pi s c u s s i on . No d i f f e r e n c e s were found on the s e n s a t i o n - i n t u i t i o n index of the MBTI between the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g g r o u p s . N e i t h e r i n t u i t o r s nor s e n s o r s were more l i k e l y to p r o c r a s t i n a t e than the o t h e r i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s t u d y . T h i s f i n d i n g i s a l s o c o n s i s t e n t w i th Myers and M c C a u l l e y ' s t h e o r y and l e n d s e v i d e n c e to the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t the s e n s i n g - i n t u i t i v e d i m e n s i o n i s not a f a c t o r i n v o l v e d i n p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . H y p o t h e s i s 3: R e s u l t . T h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the t h i n k i n g - f e e l i n g index of the MBTI. H y p o t h e s i s i s a c c e p t e d and the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s not r e j e c t e d . Pi s c u s s i o n . T h i s f i n d i n g s u p p o r t s Myers and M c C a u l l e y ' s t h e o r y as w e l l . No d i f f e r e n c e s were found on the t h i n k i n g - f e e l i n g s c a l e of the MBTI between the two groups s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h i s d i m e n s i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y i s not a f a c t o r r e l a t i n g to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as i t p e r t a i n s to t h e s i s w r i t i n g . H y p o t h e s i s 4: R e s u l t . P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l tend to s c o r e toward (7.1) the p e r c e i v i n g end of the j u d g i n g - p e r c e i v i n g continuum w h i l e n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l tend to s c o r e toward the j u d g i n g s i d e of the continuum. H y p o t h e s i s i s a c c e p t e d . T h i s d i r e c t i o n a l h y p o t h e s i s was c onfirmed s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s do tend to be p e r c e p t i v e t ypes as measured by the MBTI w h i l e n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s tended to s c o r e toward the j u d g i n g end of the continuum. D i s c u s s i o n . T h i s i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g . While no d i f f e r e n c e s were found between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n t o r s on the other t h r e e s c a l e s of the MBTI, t h e r e was c l e a r l y a d i f f e r e n c e between these two groups on the J-P continuum. With the midpoint set at 100, the mean s c o r e f o r the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group was 112.36. The mean s c o r e f o r the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group was 91.16. T h i s f i n d i n g c l e a r l y s u p p o r t s Myers and McCaulley s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n may occur more f r e q u e n t l y with i n d i v i d u a l s who are p e r c e i v e r s as opposed to j u d g e r s , thereby s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s may indeed be i n v o l v e d i n p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . F i n a l l y , a c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s was conducted to determine i f d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y types was s i g n i f i c a n t between these two groups. A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was f o u n d , a l t h o u g h the small sample s i z e i n v o l v e d i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t c e r t a i n l y r e s t r i c t s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of these f i n d i n g s . H y p o t h e s i s 5: R e s u l t . There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP types i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than i n the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group. H y p o t h e s i s i s a c c e p t e d . (72) D i s c u s s i o n . T h i s f i f t h h y p o t h e s i s t e s t e d the s u g g e s t i o n found i n e a r l i e r r e s e a r a c h l i n k i n g NFP types to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was a l s o c o n f i r m e d . When the NFP types were compared with a l l the other types i n a c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s , s i g n i f i c a n t l y more NFP's were found i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than in the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group. While the sample s i z e i s small given the p o s s i b i l i t y of 16 t y p e s , i t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t such a t r e n d was found i n these d a t a . It does appear that p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s do tend to be NFP types w h i l e the p e r s o n a l i t y type of the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s i s not c l e a r l y apparent and appears to be more eve n l y d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the other remaining t y p e s . Four types were not r e p r e s e n t e d at a l l i n the sample: I S T J , ISTP, ISFP and ESFP. What i s common to a l l these groups i s S. As has been mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e r e was a high percentage of i n t u i t i v e types i n t h i s sample as would be expected given t h e i r s p e c i a l i t y area ( C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y ) . Of the remaining 12 t y p e s , 447. were e i t h e r ENFP or INFP types ( n e a r l y 787. of these were the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) and another 20% c o n s i s t e d of INFJ and ENFJ types (807. of these were the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) . I S F J , ESTP and ESFJ each made up 27. of the sample. INTP c o n s i s t e d of 47., ENTP, ESTJ and ENTJ each comprised 67. of the sample and INTJ made up 87.. ( 7 3 ) L i m i t a t i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u t u r e Research L i m i t a t i o n s The primary l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s study was i t s sample s i z e . There were 25 s u b j e c t s i n each group and t h i s i s a r e l a t i v e l y small number of s u b j e c t s to be c o n s i d e r e d when u s i n g an instrument l i k e the MBTI. T h i s l i m i t a t i o n was e s p e c i a l l y pronounced when u s i n g dichotomous s c o r e s to a n a l y z e the d i s t r i b u t i o n of types where 16 p o s s i b l e types c o u l d be r e p r e s e n t e d . The i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s study were a l l part of a s p e c i f i c graduate student p o p u l a t i o n ( C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y ) . The c u l t u r a l , economic and e d u c a t i o n a l p r o f i l e of such a p o p u l a t i o n cannot be s a i d to r e p r e s e n t more than a small segment of s o c i e t y . To the extent that response s t y l e s to the t e s t i n s t r u m e n t s were i n f l u e n c e d by t h i s set of c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the study i s l i m i t e d i n i t s g e n e r a l i z a b i 1 i t y . Another l i m i t a t i o n i s one which i s p r a c t i c a l l y u n a v o i d a b l e when co n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h with human s u b j e c t s . That i s the problem of u l t i m a t e r e l i a n c e upon the w i l l i n g n e s s of people to v o l u n t e e r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the s t u d y . The random s e l e c t i o n of s u b j e c t s w i t h i n each group was an attempt to c o n t r o l f o r t h i s confounding a s p e c t , but s u b j e c t s who had been s e l e c t e d were s t i l l f r e e to d e c l i n e to p a r t i c i p a t e . While the number of those who d i d d e c l i n e was r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l , t h e r e was a c o n s i d e r a b l e number of i n d i v i d u a l s who had moved from the area and c o u l d not be l o c a t e d . Whether s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y type e x i s t between those who moved away and (74) those who remained w i t h i n the lower mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia i s a q u e s t i o n t h a t remains unanswered by t h i s s t u d y . Another l i m i t a t i o n p e r t a i n s to the l a c k of a v a l i d and r e l i a b l e i n strument f o r the measurement of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . T h i s study was unable to compare p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a h a b i t u a l mode of b e h a v i o r with p e r s o n a l i t y type s i n c e t h e r e are c u r r e n t l y no w i d e l y accepted measures of t h i s b e h a v i o r . It was, t h e r e f o r e , c o n f i n e d to one s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r a l measure of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : the tendency to delay the c o m p l e t i o n of the Master's t h e s i s . It c a n n o t , t h e r e f o r e , be assumed that the c o r r e l a t i o n between p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the t h e s i s and p e r s o n a l i t y type a u t o m a t i c a l l y g e n e r a l i z e s to other forms of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , i t cannot be i n f e r r e d from t h i s study t h a t c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s cause p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . C o r r e l a t i o n does not imply c a u s a t i o n . T h i s study merely suggests that c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s do appear to p l a y a r o l e i n the phenomenon of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the t h e s i s p r o j e c t . It a l s o suggests that c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y types do appear to be more v u l n e r a b l e to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r task than other t y p e s . While t h i s study took c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e c a u t i o n to ensure that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the t h e s i s was i n f a c t the v a r i a b l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the two groups (by i n s i s t i n g upon both s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l d e l a y ) , t h e r e are i n h e r e n t l i m i t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g s e l f - r e p o r t i n any s t u d y . I n d i v i d u a l s who may have indeed p r o c r a s t i n a t e d were e l i m i a t e d from the study i f they d i d not s e l f - r e p o r t t h i s b e h a v i o r . S i m i l a r l y , s e l f - r e p o r t on the MBTI does not take u n c o n s c i o u s m o t i v a t i o n s , e t c . i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n when measuring p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s . C l e a r l y , t h e r e can be a c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c r e p a n c y between what an i n d i v i d u a l r e p o r t s (75) and how s/he a c t u a l l y behaves. In s p i t e of these l i m i t a t i o n s , however, i t does appear c l e a r -from t h i s study s f i n d i n g s t h a t Jungian p s y c h o l o g i c a l type i s indeed a r e l e v a n t f a c t o r i n v o l v e d i n the tendency to p r o c r a s t i n a t e on w r i t i n g a Master's t h e s i s . C e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y t ypes appear more v u l n e r a b l e to p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on t h i s task than o t h e r s . In a d d i t i o n , i t a l s o lends e v i d e n c e to support the theory t h a t p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n may occur as a consequence of the h a b i t u a l tendency to u t i l i z e a p e r c e p t u a l a t t i t u d e when a j u d g i n g a t t i t u d e would be more a p p r o p r i a t e . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u t u r e Research Given the f a c t t h a t very l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been conducted on t h e s i s w r i t i n g , the f i e l d i s wide open f o r f u t u r e s t u d y . T h i s study has made a c o n t r i b u t i o n i n a n a l y z i n g how c e r t a i n graduate s t u d e n t s appear to s t a l l on t h e i r f i n a l p r o j e c t by s u g g e s t i n g that c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s may c o n t r i b u t e to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on t h i s t a s k . P e r s o n a l i t y type i s o b v i o u s l y o n l y one f a c t o r i n v o l v e d i n the f a c t that n e a r l y o n e - h a l f of a l l graduate s t u d e n t s f a i l to graduate due to non-completion of t h e i r f i n a l p r o j e c t . A c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n c e study i n t e r v i e w i n g both p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s would be a v a l u a b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h i s a rea of i n t e r e s t . In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e simply i s l i t t l e c u r r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l data a v a i l a b l e on how s e r i o u s t h i s problem i s i n graduate s c h o o l s . Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n numbers of i n d i v i d u a l s who f a i l to graduate due to non-completion of t h e i r t h e s i s among the d i f f e r e n t departments w i t h i n a u n i v e r s i t y ? If s o , why? Do u n i v e r s i t i e s d i f f e r i n t h e i r (76) a b i l i t y to a s s i s t t h e i r graduate s t u d e n t s i n c o m p l e t i n g the t h e s i s requirement on time? If s o , what f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e to t h i s phenomenon and what f a c t o r s i n h i b i t i t from o c c u r r i n g ? S e c o n d l y , t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t need f o r a v a l i d and r e l i a b l e i nstrument to measure p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . While c o n t r i b u t i o n s have been made i n t h i s f i e l d ( G r e c c o , 1984; Solomon St Rothbl urn, 1984), much more work needs to be done i n t h i s area b e f o r e a widely accepted measure of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n w i l l be a v a i l a b l e . Once an a p p r o p r i a t e instrument has been c o n s t r u c t e d , p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a h a b i t u a l mode of behavior can be compared more r e a d i l y with p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e . F i n a l l y , f u r t h e r s t u d i e s must r e p l i c a t e t h i s s t u d y ' s f i n d i n g s l i n k i n g p e r s o n a l i t y type with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . A l o n g i t u d i n a l study c o u l d be run by a d m i n i s t e r i n g the MBTI to those e n t e r i n g t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e programs and then comparing t h e i r performance with t h e i r MBTI s c o r e s . If t h i s s t u d y ' s f i n d i n g s are r e p l i c a t e d , i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s c o u l d then be implemented to a s s i s t NFP types or those s c o r i n g high on the p e r c e p t u a l end of the J-P s c a l e to develop t h e i r j u d g i n g ( d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g ) f u n c t i o n s . A l a r g e r sample ( p o s s i b l y comparing r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from s e v e r a l d i s c i i p i i n e s ) i s c l e a r l y n e c e s s a r y to add v a l i d i t y to these r e s u l t s . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed to determine s p e c i f i c ways i n which those who do appear to have a d e f i c i t i n t h e i r j u d g i n g a t t i t u d e c o u l d l e a r n to r e l y l e s s on t h e i r p e r c e p t u a l a t t i t u d e and more on t h e i r j u d g i n g a b i l i t i e s . C l e a r l y , the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h are myriad. What i s s i g n i f i c a n t about t h i s s t u d y i - s that i t has begun to f i n d a c o r r e l a t i o n between p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on c o m p l e t i n g a Master's t h e s i s (77) and p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e . It has, there-fore, j u s t i f i e d the need f o r f u t u r e study i n t h i s a r e a . (78) REFERENCES B a l l , E . B. (1967) . A f a c t o r a n a l y t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the p e r s o n a l i t y t y p o l o g y of C . 6. J u n g . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 28, 4277-B. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 63-3524) B i g g s , B. E . , & F e l t o n , 6. S. (1973) . Reduc ing t e s t a n x i e t y of c o l l e g i a t e b l a c k low a c h i e v e r s i n an academic s e t t i n g . The J o u r n a l  of Negro E d u c a t i o n . 42, 54 -57 . B l a t t , S. J . , it Q u i n l a n , P. (1967) . P u n c t u a l and p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g s t u d e n t s : A s tudy of t e m p o r a l p a r a m e t e r s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g  P s y c h o l o g y . 31_, 169-174. Bradway, K. (1964) . J u n g ' s p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e s . J o u r n a l of  A n a l y t i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 9, 129-135. B r i s t o l , M. M . , & S l o a n e , H. N . , J r . (1974) . E f f e c t s of c o n t i n g e n c y c o n t r a c t i n g on s t u d y r a t e on t e s t p e r f o r m a n c e . J o u r n a l of  A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s . 7_, 271-285 . B u r k a , J . B. , & Yuen , L . M. (1982) . Mind games p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s p l a v . P s y c h o l o g y T o d a y . J a n u a r y . 3 2 - 3 4 , 4 4 . B u r k a , J . B . , & Yuen , L . M. (1984) . P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : Whv you do i t ,  what to do about i t . R e a d i n g , MA: A d d i s o n - W e s l e y . C a r l s o n , R. , it L e v y , N. (1973) . S t u d i e s of J u n g i a n t y p o l o g y : I . Memory, s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n , and s o c i a l a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i ty . 41 . 559-576. C a r l y n , M. (1977) . An assessment of the M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y A s s e s s m e n t . 41 . 461-473. C a r r i g a n , P. (1960) . E x t r a v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i on as a d i m e n s i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y : A r e a p p r a i s a l . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 57. 329-360. C a r s k a d o n , T . 6. (1977) . T e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s of c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s on the M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 41_, 1011-1012. C a r s k a d o n , T . G. (1979) . B e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between e x t r a v e r t s and i n t r o v e r t s as measured by the M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r : An e x p e r i m e n t a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n . R e s e a r c h i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l  T y p e . 2, 78-82 . (79) Conary, F. M. (1966). R e l a t i o n of c o l l e g e freshmen's p s y c h o l o g i c a l types to t h e i r academic t a s k s . P r e s e n t e d at American Personnel and Guidance A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, D.C. C i t e d i n flyer s - B r i ggs Type I n d i c a t o r : An annotated b i b l i o g r a p h y of the l i t e r a t u r e . Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, E d u c a t i o n C l i n i c . Cook, D. A. (1970). Is Jung's t y p o l o g y t r u e ? A t h e o r e t i c a l and e x p e r i m e n t a l study of some assumptions i m p l i c i t i n a theory of p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 1971, 31_, 2979-B. U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 70-21,987) C r e a g e r , J . A. (1965). P r e d i c t i n g d o c t o r a l attainment with GRE and  other v a r i a b l e s (Tech. Rep. £ 2 5 ) . N a t i o n a l Academy of S c i e n c e s Research Counci 1 j_ O f f i c e of S c i e n t i f i c P e r s o n n e l , Washington D.C. D e v i t o , A. J . (1985). Review of Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r . In J . V. M i t c h e l l , J r . ( E d . ) , The Nineth Mental Measurements  Yearbook: V o l . II (pp.1030-1032). U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s . E g g i n s , J . A. (1979). The i n t e r a c t i o n between s t r u c t u r e i n l e a r n i n g  m a t e r i a l s and the p e r s o n a l i t y type of l e a r n e r s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Indiana U n i v e r s i t y . E l l i s , A., & Knaus, W. J . (1977). Overcoming p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . New York: I n s t i t u t e f o r R a t i o n a l L i v i n g . E l y , D. D. , h. Hampton, J . D. (1973). P r e d i c t i o n of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i n a s e l f - p a c i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l system. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 075501) Eysenck, H. J . (1953). The s t r u c t u r e of human p e r s o n a l i t y . London: Methuen. F r e y , A. H., & B e c k e r , W. C. (1958). Some p e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s of s u b j e c t s who f a i l to appear f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l appointments. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 22_(3), 164. G o l l i d a y , J . M. (1975). An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h r e e methods of u t i l i z i n g l a b o r a t o r y a c t i v i t i e s i n s e l e c t e d t o p i c s of j u n i o r c o l l e g e mathematics. D i s s e r t a t i o n  A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 36.(02), 61 1A. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 75-16,383) Gorlow, L., Simonson, N. R., & K r a u s s , H. (1966). An e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Jungian t y p o l o g y . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of S o c i a l  and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 5, 108-117. (80) Gosse, J . M. (1978). The Jungian p s y c h o l o g i c a l types as measured by the M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to m a r i t a l adjustment ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1979). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 39(10-B), 5066. Gr a n t , W. H. (1965). Behavior of Myers-Briggs type i n d i c a t o r types (Research R e p o r t ) . Auburn, Alabama: Auburn U n i v e r s i t y , Student C o u n s e l i n g S e r v i c e . G r e c c o , P. R. (1984). A c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l assessment of p r o b l e m a t i c academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : Development of a p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n s e l f - s t a t e m e n t i n v e n t o r y ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a School of P r o f e s s i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1984.) Di s s e r t a t i on  A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 46J2) , 640-B. Green, L. G. (1982). M i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s ' s e l f - c o n t r o l of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 29(6) , 636-644. Gray, H., & W h e e l r i g h t , J . B. (1944). Jung's p s y c h o l o g i c a l types and m a r r i a g e . S t a n f o r d Medical B u l l e t i n . 2_, 37-39. Groveman, A. M. , R i c h a r d s , C. S., & C a p l e , R. B. (1977). E f f e c t s of s t u d y - s k i l l s c o u n s e l i n g v e r s u s b e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l t e c h n i q u e s i n the treatment of academic performance. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 41_, 186. Haber, R. A. (1980). D i f f e r e n t s t r o k e s f o r d i f f e r e n t f o l k s : Jung's t y p o l o g y and s t r u c t u r e d e x p e r i e n c e s . Group and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l  S t u d i e s . 5, 113-119. H i l l , M. B., H i l l , D. A., Chabot, A. E., & B a r r a l l , J . F. (1978). A survey of c o l l e g e f a c u l t y and student p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Col 1eqe  Student J o u r n a l . 12. 256-262. Howes, R. J . , i Carskadon, T. G. (1979). T e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r as a f u n c t i o n of mood changes. Research i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l Type. 2_, 67-72. J a c k s o n , B. T., & Van Z o o s t , B. L. (1972). Changing study b e h a v i o r s through r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n t i n g e n c i e s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g  P s y c h o l o g y . 19., 192-195. Jung, C. 6. (1921). P s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e s . New York: Harcourt Brace. Keenan, J . B., Bono, S. F., & Hursh, D. E. (1978). Shaping time management s k i l l s : Two examples i n PSI. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i z e d  I n s t r u c t i o n . 3_, 46-49. (81) K e i r s e y , D., & B a t e s , M. (1984). P l e a s e understand me. Del Mar, CA: Gnosology Books, L t d . Kilmann, R. H. , & T a y l o r , V. ( 1974). A c o n t i n g e n c y approach to l a b o r a t o r y l e a r n i n g : P s y c h o l o g i c a l types versus e x p e r i m e n t a l norms. Human R e l a t i o n s . 2 7 ( 9 ) . 891-909. Kirschenbaum, D. S., & P e r r i , M. G. (1982). Improving academic competence i n a d u l t s : A review of r e c e n t r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of  C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 29. 76-94. Knox, W. J . ( 1970). O b t a i n i n g a Ph.D. i n p s y c h o l o g y . Ameri can  P s y c h o l o g i s t . 25., 1026-1032. Levy, N., Murphy, C., J r . , & C a r l s o n , R. (1972). P e r s o n a l i t y types among Negro c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Measurement, 32, 641-653. Lu , P. H. (1976). M o d i f i c a t i o n of p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g b e h a v i o r i n p e r s o n a l i z e d system of i n s t r u c t i o n ( T h i r d N a t i o n a l Conference on P e r s o n a l i z e d Systems of I n s t r u c t i o n i n Higher E d u c a t i o n ) . Washington DC. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 125971) Mattoon, M. A. (1981). Jungian psychology i n p e r s p e c t i v e . New York: M a c m i l l a n . M c C a u l l e y , M. H. (1978). A p p l i c a t i o n of Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r to  medicine and other h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n s (Monograph I, C o n t r a c t No. 231-76-0051, He a l t h Resource A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , DHEW), G a i n s v i l l e , F l o r i d a : Center f o r A p p l i c a t i o n of P s y c h o l o g i c a l Types. M c C a u l l e y , M. H. (1981). Jung's theory of p s y c h o l o g i c a l types and the Myers - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r . In P. McReynolds ( E d . ) , Advances i n  P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment (294-352). San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s . M c C a u l l e y , M. H. , «e N a t t e r , F. L. (1974). P s y c h o l o g i c a l (Myers-Briggs) type d i f f e r e n c e s i n e d u c a t i o n . In F. L. N a t t e r , ?! S. A. R o l l i n ( E d s . ) , The Governor's Task Fo r c e on D i s r u p t i v e  Youth: Phase II Re p o r t . T a l l a h a s s e e , FL: O f f i c e of the Governor. [Report out of p r i n t . T h i s c h a p t e r a v a i l a b l e from Center f o r A p p l i c a t i o n s of P s y c h o l o g i c a l Type, 6 a i n e s v i l l e , F L . l McRae, B. C., & S k e l t o n , T. M. (1979). Changes i n s e l f - p e r c e o t i o n as a  r e s u l t of Ph. D. a t t a i n m e n t . Unpublished M a n u s c r i p t , C o u n s e l l i n g and P s y c h o l o g i c a l S e r v i c e s , D a l h o u s i e U n i v e r s i t y , H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a , Canada. Mendelsohn, G. A. (1965). Review of Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r . In 0. K. Buros ( E d . ) , S i x t h Mental Measurement Yearbook (3rd e d . ) . Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon P r e s s . (82) Mendelsohn, 6. A. (1970). Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r . In 0. K. Buros E d . ) , P e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s and r e v i e w s . Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon P r e s s . M i l l e r , L. K., Weaver, F. H., & Serab, 6. (1974). A,procedure f o r m a i n t a i n i n g student p r o g r e s s i n a p e r s o n a l i z e d u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s . 7_i 87-91. Myers, I. B. (1962a). I n f e r e n c e s as to the dichotomous n a t u r e of Jung's t y p e s . American Psychol ooi s t , 17., 364. Myers, I. B. (1962b). The M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r manual. Palo A l t o : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s . Myers, I. B., & D a v i s , J . A. (1977). R e l a t i o n of p s y c h o l o g i c a l type  to t h e i r s p e c i a l t i e s 12 y e a r s l a t e r . Paper prese n t e d at the meeting of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Los A n g e l o s , September 1964. [ R e p r i n t e d i n M c C a u l l e y , M. H. The Myers L o n g i t u d i n a l Medical Study (HRA C o n t r a c t No. 231-76-0051, Monograph 11). G a i n e s v i l l e , FL: Center f o r the A p p l i c a t i o n of P s y c h o l o g i c a l Type.] Myers, I. B. , & M c C a u l l e y , M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the  development and use of the M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r . P a l o A l t o , CA: C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s . Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1980). 6 i f t s d i f f e r i n g . Palo A l t o , CA: C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s . P a l m i e r e , L. (1972). I n t r o - e x t r a - v e r s i o n as an o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e i n f a n t a s y p r o d u c t i o n . J o u r n a l of A n a l y t i c a l P s c y c h o l o g y . 17(2) . 116-131. Powers, B. E. (1984). R e l a t i o n s h i p s between the l o c u s of c o n t r o l and i n n e r - o t h e r d i r e c t e d n e s s of p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and the p e r c e i v e d o r i g i n of t h e i r p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n t r i g g e r i n g cues ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i t e d S t a t e s I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y , 1984). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 45.(10), 3343-B. R i c h a r d s , C. S. (1975). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n of s t u d y i n g through study s k i l l s a d v i c e and s e l f - c o n t r o l p r o c e d u r e s . J o u r n a l of  C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 22. 431-436. R i c h a r d s , C. S. (1981). Improving c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ' s t u d y b e h a v i o r s through s e l f - c o n t r o l t e c h n i q u e s : A b r i e f r e v i e w . B e h a v i o r a l  C o u n s e l i n g Q u a r t e r l y . 1_, 159-175. R o s a t i , P. A. (1975). P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s p r e f e r PSI. E d u c a t i o n Research and Methods. 8. 17-19.22. (83) Ross, J . (1966). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between a Jungian p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r y and t e s t s of a b i l i t y , p e r s o n a l i t y , and i n t e r e s t . A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y . 18, 1-17. Rothblum, E. 0. , Beswick, G. , & Mann, L. ( 1984). P s y c h o l o g i c a l antecendents of student p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , F l i n d e r s U n i v e r s i t y of South A u s t r a l i a , A d e l a i d e , A u s t r a l i a . Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J . , % Murakami, J . (1986). A f f e c t i v e , c o g n i t i v e , and b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between high and low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 33.(4) , 387-394. S a b i n i , J . , it S i l v e r , M. (1982). M o r a l i t i e s of everyday l i f e . O x ford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Sachs, L. (1978). [ E n t e r i n g Resources Q u e s t i o n n a i r e data f o r Ohio S t a t e U n i v r e s i t y medical s t u d e n t s . ] Unpublished raw d a t a . S e l l s , L. W. (1973). Sex and d i s c i p l i n e d i f f e r e n c e s i n d o c t o r a l a t t r i t i o n . P r e sented at the Graduate Assembly's Committee on the S t a t u s of Women, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y . Semb, G. , G l i c k , D. M., & Spencer, R. E. (1979). Student withdrawals and delayed work p a t t e r n s i n s e l f - p a c e d psychology c o u r s e s . Teaching of P s y c h o l o g y . 6_, 23-25. S h a e f f e r , P. E. (1973). Academic p r o g r e s s of disadvantaged m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s : A 2-year s t u d y . J o u r n a l of C o l l e g e Student P e r s o n n e l , 14., 41-46. Shakespeare, W. (1988). Hamlet. New York: Bantam Books. S i e v e k i n g , N. A., C a m p b e l l , M. L., R i l e i g h , W. J . , & S a v i t s k y , J . (1971). Mass i n t e r v e n t i o n by mail f o r an academic impediment. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 18., 601-602. Simon, R. S. (1979). Jungian types and c r e a t i v i t y of p r o f e s s i o n a l  f i n e a r t i s t s . U npublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i t e d S t a t e s U n i v e r s i t y . S mith, A., I r e y , R., & M c C a u l l e y , M. H. (1973). S e l f - p a c e d i n s t r u c t i o n and c o l l e g e s t u d e n t ' s p e r s o n a l i t y . E n g i n e e r i n g  Educat i on. 63. 435-440. Solomon, L. J . , Murakami, J . , Gree n b e r g e r , C., & Rothblum, E. D. (1983). D i f f e r e n c e s between high and low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s as a d e a d l i n e approaches: A q u a l i t a t i v e s t u d y . Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y of Vermont. (84) Solomon, L. J . , & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : Frequency and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l c o r r e l a t e s . J o u r n a l of  C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 31 (4) , 503-509. S t r i e k e r , L. J . , & Ross, J . (1963). I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s and r e l i a b i l i t y of the Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r s c a l e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 12., 287-293. S t r i e k e r , L. J . , & Ross, J . (1964). An assessment of some s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s of the Jungian p e r s o n a l i t y t y p o l o g y . J o u r n a l of  Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 68., 62-71 . S t r i e k e r , L. J . , S c h i f f m a n , H., & Ross, J . (1965). P r e d i c t i o n of c o l l e g e performance with the Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r . E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 2 5 ( 4 ) , 1081-1095. von Fange, E. A. (1961). I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e of e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . Webb, S. C. (1964). An a n a l y s i s of the s c o r i n g system of the Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r . E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology and  Measurement. 24_, 765-781. Wedeman, S. C. (19B5). P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : An i n q u i r y i n t o i t s e t i o l o g y and phenomenology ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a , 1985). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 4 6 ( 5 ) , 1733-B. Wentworth, M. T. (1980). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l adjustment and Jungian p s y c h o l o g i c a l types of c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . Di s s e r t a t i o n  A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 4J_(9-A), 3893. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 8105629) Z i e s a t , H. A., R o s e n t h a l , T. L. , & White, 6. M. (1978). B e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l i n t r e a t i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of s t u d y i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 42, 59-69. (85) (86) APPENDIX A LETTER OF INITIAL CONTACT (88) APPENDIX B INSTRUCTION SHEET (90) APPENDIX C SUBJECT CONSENT FORM (92) APPENDIX D DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE (93) DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Type of Master's degree c u r r e n t l y sought or a l r e a d y c o n f e r r e d : M.A. M.Ed, ( p l e a s e c i r c l e ) 2. Have you completed your t h e s i s or major paper? If s o , when? month year 3. When d i d you begin your s t u d i e s f o r the above Master's degree? month year 4. To what degree was/is p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n a f a c t o r i n the l e n g t h of time i t h a s / i s t a k i n g you to complete your t h e s i s or major paper? ( p l e a s e c i r c l e ) Never A F a c t o r Almost Never A F a c t o r Sometimes A F a c t o r N e a r l y Always A F a c t o r Always A F a c t o r Yes No Do you wish to have a Myers-Briggs Report Form mailed you once the s c o r i n g has been completed? THIS COMPLETES THE DEM06RAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055908/manifest

Comment

Related Items