Creative procrastinators: Mapping a complex terrain

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Creative procrastinators: Mapping a complex terrain Shabnam Zanjani a b c

a,⁎,1

b,1

, Dilek G. Yunlu

, Joan N. Shapiro Beigh

c

T

Loyola University Chicago, 16 E Pearson St, Chicago, IL 60611, United States Northeastern Illinois University, 5500 N. St. Louis Ave, Chicago, IL 60625, United States DePaul University, 1 E. Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60604, United States

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Creativity Procrastinators Forgetting fixation theory Emotional stability Conscientiousness Active procrastination Incubation

Employing forgetting fixation theory, we distinguish between passive and active procrastinators by examining their impacts on creativity along with the moderating roles of emotional stability and conscientiousness. Across two independent studies with students (Study 1) and the general public (Study 2), we found different effects on self-reported versus expert-rated task creativity. Passive procrastination had a negative relationship with selfreported creativity but a positive relationship with expert-rated creativity. The four dimensions of active procrastination had mixed effects on creativity. The effects of a person's ability to meet deadlines – a facet of active procrastination – on both creativity measures were further enhanced by conscientiousness. Emotional stability weakened the positive effect of another facet of active procrastination, preference for pressure, on expert-rated creativity. By delineating the differential relationship of two types of procrastination with creativity, this study highlights the importance of refining a model of purposeful delay in creativity.

1. Introduction Leonardo Da Vinci, one of the most creative individuals in history, was criticized for his procrastinating lifestyle and habits. He accepted commission payments for works he would never complete and would hide from creditors; he was notorious for missing deadlines and turning in his commissions late if at all (Pannapacker, 2009). Procrastination is traditionally defined as an act of delay, as well as the result of a selfregulatory failure (Corkin, Yu, & Lindt, 2011). Like Leonardo, many adults consider themselves to be chronic procrastinators who have issues completing their assigned tasks on time (Subotnik, Steiner, & Chakraborty, 1999; Blunt & Pychl, 1998; Harriott & Ferrari, 1996). More than half of American college students procrastinate “consistently and problematically” on their academic work (Ferrari, O'Callaghan, & Newbegin, 2005; Day, Mensink, & O'Sullivan, 2000; Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Harriott & Ferrari, 1996). Historically, procrastinators have been seen as lazy, even self-indulgent, individuals who could not – or would not – regulate their activities or manage their time relative to their responsibilities (Ferrari, 2001; Tuckman & Sexton, 1989). Some experts interpret procrastination as a modern phenomenon that is worsening over time (Klassen, Ang, Chong, Krawchuk, Huan, Wong, & Yeo, 2010; Kachgal, Hansen, & Nutter, 2001). However, recent studies have made a critical distinction between traditional “passive”

procrastination and “active” procrastination (Chu & Choi, 2005; Choi & Moran, 2009). Whereas traditional procrastination behavior is selfhandicapping in terms of indecision and mental paralysis, “active procrastination” is a positive form of procrastination in which procrastinators deliberately decide to delay an action, or procrastinate, with the intention of creating a future situation where he or she must work under pressure (Chu & Choi, 2005). Creative behavior encompasses the generation of novel and useful ideas, processes, or solutions (Amabile, 1983; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Researchers suggest that a number of factors such as time pressures can either enhance or hinder creativity (Amabile, 1996; Baer & Oldham, 2006; Byron, Khazanchi, & Nazarian, 2010). For example, it is suggested that individuals who experience intermediate time pressure should fully engage in their activities, and as a consequence, they are more likely to explore different ideas and experiment with novel approaches to solving problems (Baer & Oldham, 2006). The literature indicates that personality factors can mitigate or exacerbate outcomes in general (e.g. Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005). For this study, we focus on emotional stability and conscientiousness as they present specific relationships with active procrastination. Emotional stability, which is represented by calmness, composure and a serene attitude (McCrae & Costa, 1992), is a particular trait of interest that would attenuate the stressful impact of time

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Zanjani), [email protected] (D.G. Yunlu), [email protected] (J.N.S. Beigh). 1 The first two authors contributed equally. ⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109640 Received 13 June 2019; Received in revised form 26 August 2019; Accepted 1 October 2019 0191-8869/ Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

S. Zanjani, et al.

pressure active procrastinators face. Conscientiousness is associated with being organized, on time and responsible; when a deadline creeps up, for active procrastinators the capability to complete assignments on time would be a critical ability. Employing the forgetting fixation theory of incubation (Smith, 1994, 1995, 2003), which suggests that an incubation interval allows one to forget a fixating block and allow better solutions to be accessed, we suggest that active procrastination affords individuals with such incubation time. Through two empirical studies we examine the influence of passive procrastination and active procrastination on creative behavior. We further test whether the two personality traits of emotional stability and conscientiousness may moderate the relationship between trait procrastination and creative behavior.

has enough time to work on a problem, the fixating, confusing or misdirecting problems that caused the fixation will be forgotten; however, the benefits of incubation are concurrent with challenging problems that may have misdirection at the heart of the fixation (Vul & Pashler, 2007). Indeed, induced fixation is a key component of laboratory studies that examine incubation effects (Kohn & Smith, 2009). We argue that challenging problems that require creative problemsolving techniques qualify as a type of problem that would reap the benefits of incubation. 1.2. Creative behavior Creative behavior is defined as outcomes that are both novel and useful (Amabile, 1988, 1996). Creativity is perceived as the first and critical stage of innovation (Zhou & Hoever, 2014). Studies in individual creativity focus on such aspects as personality characteristics, self-concepts and affect (Zhou & Hoever, 2014). In contextual studies of creativity, researchers have identified time pressure as a vital input in creative behavior. For example, Ohly, Sonnentag, and Pluntke (2006) reported that moderate degrees of time pressure result in the highest degrees of creativity among the participating individuals. Research shows that some types of procrastinators intentionally use time pressure to motivate them to finish their work (Chu & Choi, 2005). In this study, we examine creative behavior among passive versus intentional, or “active” procrastinators and test whether active procrastinators interpret time pressure as a positive stressor and a motivating force (Liu, Pan, Luo, Wang, & Pang, 2017).

1.1. Forgetting fixation theory Fixation is defined as something that blocks successful completion of different types of cognitive operations relating to problem solving and creative idea generation (Smith, 1994). Fixation results from the inept and counterproductive use of implicit knowledge (Smith & Linsey, 2011). The forgetting fixation theory (Smith & Blankenship, 1989) suggests that by putting unsolved problems away, and not consciously working on them, the incubation time between considering the problem, putting it aside, and picking it up again enables the fixating problem to be forgotten, or minimized, which frees the mind of the problem solver and allows other solutions to come to the surface (Simon, 1966; Smith & Blankenship, 1989). Though fixation blocks problem-solving (Duncker, 1945; Luchins & Luchins, 1959; Scheerer, 1963), incubation can provide the delay that overcomes fixation and leads to insights (Wallas, 1926; Woodworth & Schlosberg, 1954). Indeed, incubation has been proposed as a fundamental stage of problem solving (Wallas, 1926). Positive incubation effects have been demonstrated in lab and field research utilizing delay (Browne & Cruse, 1988; Christensen & Schunn, 2005; Goldman, Wolters, & Winograd, 1992; Houtz & Frankel, 1992; Both, Needham, & Wood, 2004; Norlander & Gustafson, 1996; Segal, 2004; Smith & Blankenship, 1989, 1991). Other studies have explored how changing the context from a fixating situation to a more neutral or positive context can also release fixation (Smith & Beda, 2019), although arguably, when people have a great deal of time to complete their work, they will change contexts frequently. Incubation effects often are found to rely on an induced fixation in a laboratory setting, or a fixating problem in a field, or workplace situation (Kohn & Smith, 2009; Smith & Blankenship, 1989; Vul & Pashler, 2007). Fixation refers to something that inhibits successful completion of problem solving and creative idea generation (Smith & Linsey, 2011). For example, functional fixation arises from having to use familiar objects in an unfamiliar way, which is a hallmark of creativity and innovation (Smith, Paradice, & Smith, 2000). During creative problem-solving sessions, fixation generally manifests itself in terms of limiting the range and number of ideas explored (Kohn & Smith, 2011). It is suggested that fixation or conformity may be overcome through incubation effects, that is, shelving a problem temporarily to deal with conformity effects (Woodworth & Schlosberg, 1954). In other words, “forgetting fixation means to apprehend one's fixated problem without the inappropriate information or action being used, or without it coming to mind” (Smith & Linsey, 2011). Individuals need to put the fixated approach out of mind when they apprehend the problem at hand (Smith & Linsey, 2011). Several studies have found that incubation intervals facilitate solving insight problems (Penney, Godsell, Scott, & Balsom, 2004; Segal, 2004). Incubation implies that the unconscious mind has the ability to work on ideas or problems while the active mind is engaged elsewhere in pursuit of other ends, and has been shown to be effective at reducing fixation and enhancing creativity (Cai, Mednick, Harrison, Kanady, & Mednick, 2009; Kohn & Smith, 2011; Morrison, McCarthy, & Molony, 2015.) If an individual

1.3. Passive (traditional) procrastinators Procrastination is now being dissected and explored as more than an unpleasant affliction. Steel (2007) makes the case that procrastination is an irrational act of delay, irrational because the delay carries negative consequences that might have been avoided without the procrastination. Procrastinating students waste time, feel stressed, and tend to have poor academic performance, such as missed coursework deadlines, low grades, or having to withdraw from classes (Wolters, 2003; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986). Steel (2007) points out that irrationality is consistent with human neurobiology; long-term intentions created in the pre-frontal cortex may be superseded by impulses from the limbic system, which is quite sensitive to concrete opportunities for immediate gratification (McClure, Ericson, Laibson, Loewenstein, & Cohen, 2007; Kahneman, 2003). In concise terms, short-term temptations can easily sway people into putting off tasks that have longer-term rewards (Steel, 2010); individuals are predisposed in favor of activities that are more pleasant rather than advantageous in the long-term (Tice & Baumeister, 1997) such as browsing the Internet or impulsively making an online purchase (Zanjani, Milne, & Miller, 2016) . Traditional, passive procrastinators have a documented behavioral tendency of postponing behaviors necessary to reaching a particular goal or a milestone (Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Knaus, 2000). They often drift from activity to activity without the ability or intention of managing, i.e., planning or organizing their time (Bond & Feather, 1988) and then must resort to a “cramming strategy” to complete their work (Mendelson, 2007; Ratsameemonthon, Ho, Tuicomepee, & Blauw, 2018). Furthermore, traditional procrastinators tend not to be able to gauge the amount of time necessary to complete a desirable goal or task, which causes them to feel stressed and overwhelmed as deadlines loom closer and time pressure mounts (Chu & Moran, 2009; Schraw, Wadkins, Olafson, 2007; Tice & Baumeister, 1997). Forgetting fixation theory operates on the premise that shelving a fixated problem can be helpful in allowing for incubation effects to take place (Smith & Linsey, 2011). Traditional procrastinators do not engage in active incubation as suggested by forgetting fixation theory, they put away the task without utilizing the time gap to incubate and explore different, original, and novel ideas. 2

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

S. Zanjani, et al.

Therefore, we propose: Hypothesis 1. Passive procrastination is negatively related to creative behavior.

one can better apprehend the issue without the counterproductive influences of inappropriately applied knowledge (Smith & Linsey, 2011). We suggest that active procrastinators keep the assignment on the backburner as they incubate on the problem. For example, Subotnik and colleagues (1999) found that science star participants used procrastination as a form of incubation to delay a premature choice of scientific problem or a solution. The participants needed time for their ideas to mature. Besides providing time to generate creative ideas, active procrastination keeps the potential of improvisation open (Grant, 2016). Planning in advance requires building a structure, a blueprint, from which it may be difficult to deviate, potentially closing the door to creative potential. Smith and colleagues (2000) characterized procrastination as a “treatment for fixation,” in that it enables time away from challenging assignments, as well as context changes (p. 114). Therefore, we propose that active procrastination is related to creative behavior. A recent research study by Chowdhury and Pychyl (2018) indicated that active procrastination includes features of two constructs of purposeful delay and arousal delay. Purposeful delay includes external reasons while arousal delay includes internal reasons for delaying tasks (Haghbin & Pychyl, 2015). The researchers found that outcome satisfaction, preference for pressure, and intentional decision to procrastinate are positively associated with arousal delay, and ability to meet deadlines is positively associated with purposeful delay. Based on these findings, we examine the effect of each dimension of active procrastination on creative behavior rather than using active procrastination as one construct: Hypotheses 2a-2d. Active procrastination with respect to a. outcome satisfaction, b. preference for pressure, c. intentional decision, and d. ability to meet deadlines is positively related to creative behavior.

1.4. Active procrastinators In ancient Egypt, there were two distinct verbs for procrastination: one referred to laziness, and the other denoted waiting for the right time, which implies a strategic and intentional decision to procrastinate. Active procrastination resembles the latter. Over the past decade, interest in procrastination has flourished, perhaps due to a distinct phenomenon identified as “active” procrastination, a positive, or beneficial, form of procrastination (Corkin, et al., 2007; Choi & Moran, 2009; Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Bernold, 2007; Bui, 2007; Hu, Huhmann, & Hyman, 2007; Howell & Watson, 2007; Schraw et al., 2007). Chu and Choi (2005) coined the term “active procrastination,” suggesting that it was time to look at the positive effects of active procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. They contrasted active procrastination with traditional, or “passive” procrastination. Traditional procrastinators are identified as those individuals who postpone their tasks until the last minute due to an inability of making a decision to act in a timely manner, whereas active procrastinators make intentional decisions to delay the task and create strong motivation under time pressure (Choi & Moran, 2009; Liu et al., 2017). Studies have found that active procrastinators procrastinate as much as passive procrastinators; however, they are similar to nonprocrastinators in terms of their deliberate, purposive use of time, their perceptions of time, self-efficacy, coping styles, low levels of stress and depression, and their high levels of emotional stability, life satisfaction, and academic performance (Choi & Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi, 2005; Kim & Seo, 2013). According to Choi and Moran (2009), active procrastination comprises four dimensions: preference for time pressure (PP), intentional decision to procrastinate (ID), ability to meet deadlines (AD), and outcome satisfaction (OS). Preference for time pressure (PP) refers to the affective aspect of active procrastination and suggests that active procrastinators are motivated by last-minute time pressure. Intentional decision to procrastinate (ID) relates to the cognitive aspect of active procrastination and underlines the deliberate decision to postpone activities and not fixate on a set schedule. Ability to meet deadlines (AD) represents the behavioral aspect of active procrastination and suggests that active procrastinators are capable of properly estimating the minimum time required to accomplish a specific task. Finally, outcome satisfaction (OS) indicates the ability aspect of active procrastination; OS denotes the capability to achieve a successful and satisfactory completion of a particular task. Forgetting fixation theory requires time for incubation effects to take place, therefore (ID) intentional decision to procrastinate allows individual to take the necessary break to create space for incubation effects. Both (PP) preference for time pressure and (AD) ability to meet deadlines pull back individuals to explicitly come up with solutions. (OS) outcome satisfaction signals the individual when the problem was properly apprehended, and a proper solution was provided. In terms of the affective, cognitive, and behavioral components of active procrastinators, in comparison with their “darker” counterparts, their affect is the deliberate decision to procrastinate, their cognition is the preference for time pressure, and their behavior demonstrates that active procrastinators tend to complete tasks on time, according to preestablished deadlines, and achieve their academic goals (Chu & Choi, 2005). An active procrastinator's mind could be working on the assignment while the procrastinator is turning his or her attention elsewhere. According to forgetting fixation theory, an incubation interval allows a person to forget a fixating block and enable better solutions to be accessed subconsciously. By putting fixation out of mind,

1.5. Moderating role of emotional stability So far, we have argued that passive procrastination may not result in creative behavior, whereas active procrastination would lead to creative behavior. However, personal differences may influence this relationship. In the following part, we propose that the effects of both passive and active procrastination depend on the level of individuals’ emotional stability. Emotional stability is associated with positive affect and stress tolerance (McCrae & Costa, 1992) and is an important personality trait related to whether or not individuals accomplish their assignments. Emotionally stable persons are prone to be positive, confident and good at social skills (Judge, Locke, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1997). They are more likely to experience positive emotions and respond calmly to stressful events. It has been demonstrated that emotional stability has a positive effect on important indicators such as job performance (Salgado, 1997). We argue that emotional stability serves as an important tool in maximizing the effects of forgetting fixation theory. The theory suggests that one must put the fixation out of mind temporarily. However, the temporal aspect can create stress for certain individuals with low tolerance for looming deadlines. When time starts to dwindle, it can create a stressful response. Individuals who are emotionally stable may be able to weather the stress-inducing effects of time pressure and focus on the task at hand. Correspondingly, we suggest that emotionally stable individuals might be less sensitive to the demands of time pressure compared with neurotics. On the other hand, when people are low in emotional stability, they are more likely to be affected by negative life events, and to have bad moods. Specifically, that means the positive effect of preference for pressure, an affective dimension of active procrastination, on creative behavior tends to be more pronounced when emotional stability is high. Therefore, we propose: Hypothesis 3. The relationship between ‘preference for pressure’ and creative behavior will be moderated such that more emotional stability will 3

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

S. Zanjani, et al.

enhance the positive relationship between’ presence for pressure’ and creative behavior.

2.2.2. Material and procedure Students were invited to participate in an online survey of their personality and everyday habits. The survey included questions related to creativity and passive procrastination tendencies followed by questions to assess subjects’ active procrastination tendencies, emotional stability and conscientiousness. A filler task was used to separate measures of dependent and independent variables as a procedural remedy for common method bias (Tehseen, Ramayah, & Sajilan, 2017). Creativity was measured using a 12-item established scale developed by George and Zhou (2001). The scale consists of questions to assess one's objective evaluation of his/her creative behavior on a 5point Likert scale (e.g., “I suggest new ways to achieve goals or objectives”, “I often have a fresh approach to problems”). Passive procrastination was measured using the General Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986). The scale is a well-established and frequently used measure of people's procrastination of their everyday activities and tasks. The scale includes 20 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale such as: “I usually have to rush to complete a task on time,” “I often have a task finished sooner than necessary,” and “I often find myself performing tasks that I had intended to do days before.” Active Procrastination was measured using Choi and Moran's (2009) Active Procrastination Scale, which consists of 16 items across four dimensions: 4- item Outcome Satisfaction (OS) (e.g., “I achieve better results if I complete a task at a slower pace, well ahead of a deadline,” a reverse-coded item), 4-item Preference for Pressure (PP) (e.g., “I'm upset and reluctant to act when I'm forced to work under pressure,” a reverse-coded item), 4-item Intentional Decision (ID) (e.g., “to use my time more efficiently, I deliberately postpone some tasks”), and the 4-item Ability to Meet Deadlines (AD) (e.g., “I often start things at the last minute and find it difficult to complete them on time,” a reverse-coded item). Emotional stability and conscientiousness were measured using the two sub-sections of the Big Five Inventory (BFI: John, Donahue Robinson, & Kentle, 1991). We measured both using 5point Likert scales. The 8-item emotional stability scale included items such as: “I remain calm in tense situations,” and “I worry a lot.” The 9item conscientiousness scale included items such as “I persevere until the task is finished,” and “I make plans and follow through with them.” Means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alpha coefficients, and Pearson's correlations related to the constructs used in our study are reported in Table 1. All constructs had acceptable reliability of above .70. In this study since all independent variables and dependent variables were measured at one point in time from the same respondent using a self-report questionnaire, our results may suffer from common method bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). To test for potential existence of Common Method Variance (CMV), we used Harman's single-factor analysis (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). We loaded all items from all constructs into one factor to check whether a single factor accounts for majority of the covariance. Total variance was below .50 that shows CMV is not a concern in our data.

1.6. Moderating role of conscientiousness A second personality trait worth exploring is active procrastinators’ ability to meet deadlines due to their sense of conscientiousness. The link between conscientiousness and creativity is not well understood, and studies have not delivered uniform findings. In some cases, low levels of conscientiousness predicted creativity (Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001); in others, a qualitative analysis of autobiographies found a link between creative achievement and low levels of conscientiousness (Walker, Koestner, & Hum, 1995); still other studies found no link at all between creativity and conscientiousness (King, Walker & Broyles, 1996; McRae, 1987; Silvia, Winterstein, Willse, Barona, Cram, & Hess, 2008). However, conscientiousness refers to impulse control and persistence (McCrae & Costa, 1992; Goldberg, 1992; Lee & Ashton, 2004), and active procrastinators demonstrate a degree of self-regulation, i.e., impulse control and persistence, that is absent from traditional, passive procrastination. Forgetting fixation theory suggests that problem solvers need to think differently of their problems that the fixated approaches had prevented solutions (Smith & Linsey, 2011). However, when the deadline approaches, conscientious individuals will be able to complete the task on time due their abilities of being organized, on time and responsible. This suggests that when active procrastinators exhibit high levels of conscientiousness, this may help them explore creative options and still complete the task on time. Recent studies examined whether there could be a link between conscientiousness and creativity that might depend on the situation or environment (Chen, 2016; George & Zhou, 2001). Chen (2016) noted that Chinese people had higher scores in trait conscientiousness than Americans, particularly than American college students, because Chinese people are socially influenced to work hard and be persistent (Chang, Mak, Li, Wu, Chen, & Lu, 2011; Li, 2003), whereas Americans are more likely to associate achievement or success with adventure (Li, 2003). Chen (2016) found that conscientiousness moderately predicted “everyday” creativity (Β = 0.19, p <.05). King and colleagues (1996) pointed out that persistence, in some cases, is necessary in order for creative behaviors to be completed. As active procrastinators have the ability to meet deadlines, they therefore must be conscientious, taking responsibility to persist in their work until completion (Choi & Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi, 2005; King et al., 1996). We expect that creativity in those active procrastinators who have the ability to meet deadlines will be moderated by conscientiousness. We therefore suggest that: Hypothesis 4. The relationship between ‘ability to meet deadlines’ and creative behavior will be moderated such that more conscientiousness will enhance the positive relationship between ‘ability to meet deadlines’ and creative behavior.

2.2. Results

The relationships presented in our hypotheses are summarized in Fig. 1.

We used hierarchical regression to test our hypotheses. Regression coefficients, R-squares, adjusted R-squares and significance of changes in R-squares are shown in Table 2. First, we estimated a regression model using passive procrastination (H1) and four dimensions of active procrastination (H2a–H2d) as independent variables, and creativity as a dependent variable (Model 1). Second, we added the two personality traits of emotional stability and conscientiousness in Model 2. Third, to test for the moderating roles of emotional stability and conscientiousness (H3 and H4), we conducted a moderated regression analysis by adding the two interaction effects. All variables were mean centered to reduce multicollinearity. We used age and gender as control variables across all models. As Model A indicates, consistent with H1, passive procrastination had a significant negative relationship with creativity (β = −0.19, p <

2. Study 1 In Study 1 we employ a self-reported measure of creativity and test our hypotheses for a student sample. 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants Data were collected from one-hundred and seventy-nine students (52% female; age: M = 25.32, SD = 15.46) at two medium-sized universities in the U.S. 4

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

S. Zanjani, et al.

Fig. 1. Conceptual model and hypotheses.

.05). The hypothesized relationships between the four dimensions of active procrastination and creativity (H2a–H2d) were only supported for PP (H2b: β = 0.104, p < .05) and ID (H2c: β = 0.116, p < .05). We did not find support for our moderation hypotheses (H3 and H4). Figs. 2 and 3 indicates the two interaction plots related to the interactions between emotional stability and PP, and conscientiousness and AD, respectively. As Fig. 2 shows the effects of PP on self-reported creativity is no different between the two low (one standard deviation below the mean) versus high (one standard deviation above the mean) levels of emotional stability. Similarly, there is not significant difference between the effects of AD on self-reported creativity between low versus high levels of conscientiousness. Correlation scores in Table 1 provide some evidence regarding the differences between passive versus active procrastinators in terms of emotional stability and conscientiousness. Passive procrastination was negatively correlated with emotional stability (r = −0.20, p < .01) and conscientiousness (r = −0.46, p < .01) while active procrastination was positively associated with emotional stability (r = 0.18, p < .05) and conscientiousness (r = 0.20, p < .01).

2.3. Discussion Study 1 provided support for our hypotheses related to the negative relationship between passive procrastination and creativity. We also found that only certain dimensions of active procrastination (i.e., preference for time pressure and intentional decision) are positively correlated with creativity. However, it is important to note that creativity in this study was measured using respondent's self-reports of their creative behavior, which may not have sufficient validity for most uses (Baer, 1993). Also, the use of student sample may lead to limitations in terms of external validity. To overcome these limitations, we used an alternative approach to measure creativity in the next study involving a non-student sample. Study 2 uses a rated creativity task as an alternative measure of creativity. 3. Study 2 In this study, in addition to the self-reported measure, we measure creativity by evaluating the creative output of participants by three judges.

Table 1 Study 1: means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alpha coefficients, and Pearson correlations.

1. Self-reported creativity 2. Passive procrastination 3. Active procrastination 3.1 OS 3.2 PP 3.3 ID 3.4 AD 4. Emotional stability 5. Conscientiousness Mean SD Α ⁎ ⁎⁎

1

2

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

4

5

−0.17* 0.16* 0.06 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 3.75 0.66 0.92

−0.10 0.12 −00.07 0.27⁎⁎ −0.50⁎⁎ −0.20⁎⁎ −0.46⁎⁎ 2.78 0.51 0.80

0.81⁎⁎ 0.84⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎ 0.51⁎⁎ 0.18* 0.20⁎⁎ 3.20 0.53 0.79

0.71⁎⁎ −0.01 0.16* 0.08 0.02 2.99 0.86 0.82

−0.14* 0.30⁎⁎ 0.26⁎⁎ 0.16* 3.19 0.99 0.89

−0.31⁎⁎ −0.15* −0.24⁎⁎ 2.92 0.76 0.74

0.18* 0.48⁎⁎ 3.69 0.88 0.84

0.29⁎⁎ 3.09 0.61 0.70

3.76 0.59 0.75

p < .05. p < .01. 5

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

S. Zanjani, et al.

creativity and is used in different contexts such as assessing theories, research designs, artistic creations, or musical compositions (Baer & McKool, 2009). Respondents provided 452 captions and three judges independently rated the captions by assigning a creativity score of 1–5. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and was 0.72 which is within the reported range in other studies using Consensual Assessment Technique (Baer & McKool, 2009). All constructs were measured with similar items used in Study 1. Self-reported creativity, emotional stability and conscientiousness were measured using 7-point Likert scales; passive and active procrastination were measured using 5-point scales. Means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alpha coefficients, and Pearson's correlations related to all constructs are reported in Table 3. All constructs had acceptable reliabilities of above 0.70. We further test for CMV through Harman's single-factor analysis. Total variance was below 0.5 that shows CMV is not a concern in our data in Study 2.

Table 2 Predictors of self-reported creativity—Study 1. Independent variables

Model A Β

SE

Model B β

SE

Model C β

SE

Intercept Passive procrastination Active procrastination OS PP ID AD Personality traits Emotional stability Conscientiousness Interactions Emotional stability*PP Conscientiousness*AD Control variables Gender (male= 1, female = 2) Age R² Sig ΔR

⁎⁎⁎

4.041 −0.190*

0.19 0.11

⁎⁎⁎

4.081 −0.161

0.16 0.12

⁎⁎⁎

4.028 −0.151

0.20 0.12

−0.026 0.104* 0.116* 0.017

0.08 0.06 0.07 0.07

−0.025 0.098 0.118* −0.003

0.08 0.06 0.07 0.07

−0.027 0.098 0.130* 0.021

0.08 0.06 0.07 0.07

−0.028 0.094

0.09 0.10

−0.028 0.094

0.09 0.10

0.030 0.102

0.08 0.09

−0.131

0.10

−0.154

0.10

−0.140

0.11

−0.034 0.057

0.06

−0.039 0.062 0.630

0.06

−0.039 0.070 0.497

0.06

Dependent variable: self-reported creativity, *p < .05,

p < .01,

⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎

3.2. Results We examined our hypothesized relationships using hierarchical regression. First, we used self-reported creativity as a dependent variable (Table 4) and compared the results with the ones found for the student sample in Study 1. Second, we estimated the models using rated task creativity as a dependent variable (Table 5). All variables were mean centered, and age and gender were used as control variables across all models. Consistent with the results of Study 1, we found a negative relationship between passive procrastination and self-reported creativity (β = −0.157, p < .05) and positive relationships between the two dimensions of active procrastination – PP (β = 0.268, p < .001) and ID (β = 0.109, p < .05) − and self-reported creativity (Model 1). The interaction effect results (Model 3) show that the interaction between emotional stability and ‘preference for pressure’ was non-significant (β = 0.033, p > .05; see Fig. 4) but conscientiousness served as a moderator and strengthened the positive relationship between the ‘ability to meet deadlines’ and self-reported creativity (β = 0.084, p < .05; see Fig. 5). Overall the results related to self-reported creativity provided support for H1, H2b, H2c, and H4. Next, we used the rated task creativity as a dependent variable (Table 5). As Model 4 indicates, unlike what we expected, passive

p < .001.

3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants Four-hundred and fifty-two participants currently residing in the United States (50% male; age 18–29: 47%, 30–39: 32%, 40–50: 11%, and >50: 10%) were recruited from the Prolific.ac crowdsourcing website and were paid $1.40 in compensation. 3.1.2. Material and procedure Similar to Study 1, we employed an online survey with questions to measure passive procrastination, active procrastination, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and self-reported creativity. In addition to those questions, participants were asked to come up with creative captions for a cartoon. To rate the creativity of captions, we used the Consensual Assessment Technique (Amabile, 1982) in which experts in the domain are asked to evaluate the creativity rather than having a rubric or checklists. This technique is a validated tool in assessing

Fig. 2. Interaction between emotional stability and PP – effects on self-reported creativity – Study 1. 6

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

S. Zanjani, et al.

Fig. 3. Interaction between conscientiousness and AD – effects on self-reported creativity – Study 1. Table 3 Study 2: means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alpha coefficients, and Pearson correlations.

1. Self-reported creativity 2. Rated task creativity 3. Passive procrastination 4. Active procrastination 4.1 OS 4.2 PP 4.3 ID 4.4 AD 5. Emotional stability 6. Conscientiousness Mean SD Α

*p < .05,

⁎⁎

1

2

3

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

5

6

0.07 −0.19⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ 0.18⁎⁎ 0.31⁎⁎ 0.01 0.25⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎ 0.31⁎⁎ 4.80 0.99 0.94

−0.04 −0.02 −0.03 0.07 −0.09 0.07 0.02 −0.02 1.90 0.54 0.72

−0.14⁎⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ −0.18⁎⁎ 0.49⁎⁎ −0.72⁎⁎ −0.35⁎⁎ −0.72⁎⁎ 2.84 0.74 0.92

0.83⁎⁎ 0.85⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎ 0.53⁎⁎ 0.37⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ 3.10 0.59 0.83

0.69⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎ 0.05 2.98 0.87 0.81

−0.00 0.43⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎ 3.06 1.01 0.89

−0.35⁎⁎ −0.06 −0.32⁎⁎ 2.77 0.89 0.82

0.38⁎⁎ 0.69⁎⁎ 3.57 0.97 0.87

0.46⁎⁎ 3.29 1.02 0.85

4.98 1.05 0.87

p < .01.

Table 4 Predictors of self-reported creativity – Study 2.

Table 5 Predictors of rated task creativity − Study 2.

Independent variables

Model 1 β

SE

Model 2 β

SE

Model 3 β

SE

Intercept Passive procrastination Active procrastination OS PP ID AD Personality traits Emotional stability Conscientiousness Interactions Emotional stability*PP Conscientiousness*AD Control variables Gender (male = 1, female = 2) Age R² Sig ΔR

4.537⁎⁎⁎ −0.157*

0.16 0.10

4.634⁎⁎⁎ 0.077

0.16 0.11

4.578⁎⁎⁎ 0.089

0.16 0.10

−0.040 0.268⁎⁎⁎ 0.109* 0.080

0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07

−0.047 0.208⁎⁎⁎ 0.070 −0.011

0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07

−0.055 0.203⁎⁎⁎ 0.097* 0.013

0.07 0.06 0.06 0.08

0.186⁎⁎⁎ 0.227⁎⁎⁎

0.05 0.07

0.174⁎⁎⁎ 0.253⁎⁎⁎

0.05 0.07

0.033 0.084*

0.04 0.04

0.173*

0.09

0.144*

0.09

0.141

0.09

0.001 0.133

0.02

−0.016 0.197 0.000

0.02

−0.020 0.210 0.030

0.02

Dependent variable: self-reported creativity, *p < .05,

p < .01,

⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎

p < .001.

Independent variables

Model 4 β

SE

Model 5 β

SE

Model 6 β

SE

Intercept Passive procrastination Active procrastination OS PP ID AD Personality traits Emotional stability Conscientiousness Interactions Emotional stability*PP Conscientiousness*AD Control variables Gender (male = 1, female = 2) Age R² Sig ΔR

1.732⁎⁎⁎ 0.095*

.09 0.05

1.748⁎⁎⁎ 0.030

0.09 0.06

1.716⁎⁎⁎ 0.039

0.09 0.06

−0.093* 0.076* −0.033 0.044

0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04

−0.093* 0.079* −0.027 0.075*

0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04

−0.086* 0.073* −0.023 0.094*

0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04

0.009 −0.095⁎⁎

0.03 0.04

0.000 −0.085⁎⁎

0.03 0.04

−0.041* −0.043

0.02 0.02

0.017

0.05

−0.002

0.05

0.005

0.05

0.044⁎⁎⁎ 0.056

0.01

0.048⁎⁎⁎ 0.069 0.046

0.01

0.049⁎⁎⁎ 0.078 0.042

0.01

Dependent variable: rated task creativity, *p < .05,

7

⁎⁎

p < .01,

p < .001.

⁎⁎⁎

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

S. Zanjani, et al.

Fig. 4. Interaction between emotional stability and PP – effects on self-reported creativity – Study 2.

procrastination had a positive relationship with creativity (β = 0.095, p < .05) and two out of four dimensions of active procrastination predicted creativity but in different directions. ‘Outcome satisfaction’ (β = −0.093, p < .05) was negatively related to creativity while ‘preference for pressure’ (β = 0.076, p < .05) had a positive effect on creativity. Both interaction effects were significant. The opposite of what we expected, emotional stability weakened (β = −0.041, p < .05) the positive relationship between ‘performance for pressure’ and creativity (see Fig. 6). But conscientiousness enhanced the positive relationship between ‘ability to meet deadlines’ and creativity (β = 0.043, p < .05), in support of our prediction (see Fig. 7). The control variable, age, had a positive effect on creativity (β = 0.049, p < .001).

3.3. Discussion Consistent with the results of Study 1, passive procrastination had a negative effect while two dimensions of active procrastination − ‘preference for pressure’ and ‘intentional decision’ − had positive effects on self-reported creativity. Results related to expert-rated task creativity, however, indicated a positive effect for passive procrastination and mixed effects for active procrastination dimensions. ‘Preference for pressure’ had a positive relationship while ‘outcome satisfaction’ had a negative relationship with rated task creativity. Preference for pressure was the only variable that positively impacted both self-reported and expert-rated creativity. Contrary to our expectations, emotional stability had a negative impact on the positive

Fig. 5. Interaction between conscientiousness and AD – effects on self-reported creativity – Study 2.

8

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

S. Zanjani, et al.

Fig. 6. Interaction between emotional stability and PP – effects on rated task creativity – Study 2.

Fig. 7. Interaction between conscientiousness and AD – effects on rated task creativity – Study 2.

higher levels of passive procrastination reported lower levels of creativity in their everyday lives but obtained higher creativity scores in the assigned task. A possible explanation for this is the fact that traditional procrastinators had to perform the task in the survey, and they could not delay the activity. Perhaps traditional procrastinators benefit from a context in which they can't defer the action. Passive procrastinators’ higher rated creativity on the given task can also be explained by the finding in Dijksterhuis and Meurs’ (2006) study, in which participants who worked under “unconscious thought” conditions were more original than those who were given time for “conscious thought.” In that study, the authors concluded that unconscious thought may be more divergent and associative than conscious thought, which tends to be more focused and convergent (Dijksterhuis & Meurs, 2006). As passive procrastinators tend to be less focused, less determined to accomplish particular outcomes, they may be able to come up with more divergent,

relationship between preference for pressure and expert-rated creativity. Meanwhile, conscientiousness enhanced the positive effect of ability to meet deadlines on expert-rated creativity. We further discuss the implications in the general discussion section. 4. General discussion Demarcating the difference between passive and active procrastination, we examined the effects of these two procrastination traits on self-reported versus expert-rated creativity and explored the moderating roles of emotional stability and conscientiousness. Our findings offer multiple contributions to the study of procrastination and creativity. First, we found that there is a difference between passive and active procrastination when it comes to creativity. Those individuals with 9

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

S. Zanjani, et al.

(self- and expert-rated) offers novel insights with implications for management, education, and creativity domains. Our findings offer that traditional procrastinators benefit from a context in which they can't defer actions. In such context, traditional procrastinators may even indicate greater creativity compared to non-procrastinators. Despite our early assumption, we also found that active procrastination does not necessarily lead to higher creativity as different dimensions of active procrastination have varying (positive and negative) relationships with creative outcomes. “Preference for pressure” was the only dimension among the four which indicated positive impact on both self- and expert-rated creativity. Pinxten and colleagues’ (2019) study suggests that active procrastination scale should be used to measure preference for working under pressure, and intentionally delaying task accomplishment in order to increase motivation. Our analysis of personality types adds to this position by indicating that conscientiousness enhances the relationships between “intentional decision’ and ‘ability to meet deadlines’, and creativity. Some researchers argue that active procrastination should be reclassified as purposeful delay (Chowdhury & Pychyl, 2018; Corkin et al., 2011; Grunschel, Patrzek, & Fries, 2013). This fits with research showing that individuals who delay tasks may do so in an effort to reprioritize the tasks to meet other scheduled goals (Chowdhury & Pychl, 2018). Consistent with these findings, we examined the intentional delay aspect of active procrastination as a form of active incubation, one which helps alleviate fixation associated with challenging assignments with time critical deadlines. Our puzzling finding with the mitigating role of emotional stability should encourage future researchers to further investigate the link between procrastination and creativity considering varying personality types.

creative ideas. Additionally, passive procrastinators may be more likely to mind wander, defined as a mental activity characterized by unguided attention (Irving, 2016). In a laboratory study, Baird, Smallwood, Mrazek, Kam, Franklin, and Schooler (2012) designed a task that induced mind wandering and found that the results benefitted from an incubation period. Our findings related to active procrastinators were more complicated as different dimensions of active procrastination indicated different effects on creativity. Individuals who thought they could obtain satisfactory outcomes despite their procrastination obtained lower creativity scores on the task from expert judges. This demonstrates the opposite effect for the active procrastinators. Because they could not put off the task at hand, perhaps they couldn't reap the benefits of incubation in this context. In contrast, those who had greater preference to work under pressure received higher creativity scores and also selfreported higher creativity levels in their lives. In addition, those procrastinators who reported they deliberately postpone their tasks reported higher levels of creativity. We demonstrate that not all procrastination types are equal when it comes to individual creativity, and even the different dimensions of active procrastination have varying relationships with creative behavior, which further sheds light on the complex relationship between procrastination and creative behavior. Second, we explored the role of emotional stability, as an important moderator. Active procrastination escalates the time pressure for individuals to complete their assignments. We found no support that individuals who are more emotionally stable are better equipped to deal with the increasing pressure of time in Study 1. However, Study 2 offered a different perspective. Emotionally stable individuals fared worse than neurotics in dealing with the escalating time pressure. A possible explanation for this may be that neurotics’ worry and anxiety can promote high levels of preparation for the tasks (Bendersky & Shah, 2013; Tamir, 2005), particularly under increased time pressure. In Study 2, conscientiousness strengthened the relationship between active procrastinators’ ‘ability to meet deadlines’ and expert-rated creativity. Finally, employing forgetting fixation theory (Smith, 1995, 2003), we offer an explanation of why a difference exists between passive and active procrastination when it comes to creative behavior. We suggest that intentional delay in completing a task allows an individual to tap into a wider net of ideas, preventing quick, fixed, and common ideas to dominate the mind. What appears to be a time crunch on the surface may, in fact, be a purposeful incubation period that ultimately results in novel and original ideas. Active procrastination may be a form of impulse control that allows more divergent ideas to percolate to the surface by providing time needed to incubate longer, enabling active procrastinators to reach those ideas that are beyond the low-hanging branches of easy solutions.

Credit author statement Shabnam Zanjani contribution: conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; methodology, resources; software; visualization, writing; review and editing, Dilek Yunlu contribution: conceptualization; methodology; resources; writing; review and editing, Joan Shapiro Beigh contribution: writing; review and editing. Acknowledgment Authors thank Devlin Hyna for providing invaluable assistance during data analysis. References Alexander, E., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2007). Academic procrastination and the role of hope as a coping strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1301–1310. Amabile, T. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013. Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376. Amabile, T. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Baer, J., & McKool, S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment technique. In C. Schreiner (Ed.). Handbook of research on assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education (pp. 65–77). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Baer, M., & Oldham, G. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 963–970. Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M. D., Kam, J. W., Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Inspired by distraction: Mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychological Science, 23, 1117–1122. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170–180. Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 387–406. Bernold, L. (2007). Preparedness of engineering freshman to inquiry-based learning. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133, 99–106.

4.1. Limitations and suggestions for future research The purpose of this research was to examine the effects of two different procrastination traits on creativity. An interesting area for future research would be to examine the relationship between procrastination in completion of a task (task procrastination) on task creativity. We also encourage future studies to examine more outcomes as they relate to different types of procrastination. Furthermore, psychological and contextual moderators such as extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation should be employed to further understand the intricate relationship between the two forms of procrastination and creativity. In addition, we underscore the call for more multi-source data and longitudinal designs in procrastination and creativity studies. 4.2. Concluding remarks Our examination of the relationships between two types of procrastination (traditional and active) and two measures of creativity 10

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

S. Zanjani, et al. Blunt, A., & Pychyl, T. (1998). Volitional action and inaction in the lives of undergraduate students: State orientation, procrastination and proneness to boredom. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 837–846. Bond, M., & Feather, N. (1988). Some correlates of structure and purpose in the use of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 321–329. Both, L., Needham, D., & Wood, E. (2004). Examining tasks that facilitate the experience of incubation while problem-solving. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50, 57–67. Browne, B. A., & Cruse, D. F. (1988). The incubation effect: Illusion or illumination? Human Performance, 1, 177–185. Bui, N. (2007). Effect of evaluation threat on procrastination behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 197–209. Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 201. Cai, D., Mednick, S., Harrison, E., Kanady, J., & Mednick, S. (2009). REM, not incubation, improves creativity by priming associative networks. PNAS, 106, 10130–10134. Chang, L., Mak, M., Li, T., Wu, B., Chen, B., & Lu, H. (2011). Cultural adaptations to environmental variability: An evolutionary account of East–West differences. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 99–129. Chen, B. (2016). Conscientiousness and everyday creativity among Chinese undergraduate students. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 56–59. Choi, J., & Moran, S. (2009). Why not procrastinate? Development and validation of a new active procrastination scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 195–212. Chowdhury, S., & Pychyl, T. (2018). A critique of the construct validity of active procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 7–12. Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2005). Spontaneous access and analogical incubation effects. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 207–220. Chu, A., & Choi, J. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of “active” procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 245–264. Corkin, D., Yu, S., & Lindt, S. (2011). Comparing active delay and procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 602–606. Day, V., Mensink, D., & O'Sullivan, M. (2000). Patterns of academic procrastination. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 30, 120–134. Dijksterhuis, A., & Meurs, T. (2006). Where creativity resides: The generative power of unconscious thought. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 135–146. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. (1977). Overcoming procrastination: Or how to think and act rationally in spite of life's inevitable hassles. New York: Institute for Rational Living. Ferrari, J. (2001). Procrastination as self-regulation failure of performance: Effects of cognitive load, self-awareness, and time limits on ‘working best under pressure.’. European Journal of Personality, 15, 391–406. Ferrari, J., O'Callaghan, J., & Newbegin, I. (2005). Prevalence of procrastination in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia: arousal and avoidance delays among adults. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 1–6. George, J., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524. Goldberg, L. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. Goldman, W. P., Wolters, N. C. W., & Winograd, E. (1992). A demonstration of incubation in anagram problem solving. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 36–38. Grant, A. (2016). Originals: How non-conformists move the world. New York: Penguin Random House. Grunschel, C., Patrzek, J., & Fries, S. (2013). Exploring different types of academic delayers: A latent profile analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 225–233. Haghbin, M., & Pychyl, T. (2015). Measuring prototypes of delay using a vignette approach: Development and validation of the delay questionnaire. Paper presented at the 9th biennial procrastination research conference (Bielefeld, Germany). Harriott, J., & Ferrari, J. (1996). Prevalence of procrastination among samples of adults. Psychological Reports, 78, 611–616. Houtz, J. C., & Frankel, A. D. (1992). Effects of incubation and imagery training on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 183–189. Howell, A., & Watson, D. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 167–178. Hu, J., Huhmann, B., & Hyman, M. (2007). The relationship between task complexity and information search: The role of self-efficacy. Psychology and Marketing, 23, 253–270. Irving, Z. (2016). Mind-wandering is unguided attention: accounting for the “purposeful” wanderer. Philosophical Studies, 173, 547–571. John, O., Donahue Robinson, E., & Kentle, R. (1991). The big five inventory - versions 4a and 54. Institute of Personality and Social Research. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley. Judge, T., Locke, A., Thoresen, J., & Barrick, R. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (pp. 151–188). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kachgal, M., Hansen, L., & Nutter, K. (2001). Academic procrastination prevention/intervention: Strategies and recommendations. Journal of Developmental Education, 25, 14–24. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449–1475. Kim, E., & Seo, E. H. (2013). The relationship of flow and self-regulated learning to active procrastination. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 41, 1099–1113.

King, L., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189–203. Klassen, R., Ang, R., Chong, W., Krawchuk, L., Huan, V., Wong, I., & Yeo, L. (2010). Academic procrastination in two settings: Motivation correlates, behavioral patterns, and negative impact of procrastination in Canada and Singapore. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 361–379. Knaus, W. (2000). Procrastination, blame, and change. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 153–166. Kohn, N., & Smith, S. M. (2009). Partly versus completely out of your mind: Effects of incubation and distraction on resolving fixation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 102–118. Kohn, N., & Smith, S. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others' ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 359–371. Lay, C. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474–495. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358. Li, J. (2003). U.S. and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 258–267. Liu, W., Pan, Y., Luo, X., Wang, L., & Pang, W. (2017). Active procrastination and creative ideation: The mediating role of creative self-efficacy. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 227–229. Luchins, A. S., & Luchins, E. H. (1959). Rigidity of behavior, a variational approach to the effect of Einstellung. Eugene: University of Oregon Books. McClure, S., Ericson, K., Laibson, D., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. (2007). Time discounting for primary rewards. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 5796–5804. McCrae, R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265. McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1992). Discriminant validity of NEO-PIR facet scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 229–237. Mendelson, N. (2007). The functional mediation of flow between achievement anxiety, academic procrastination, and academic performanceNew York, United States: Ford-ham University. Morrison, R., McCarthy, S., & Molony, J. (2015). The experience of insight follows incubation in the compound remote associates task. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51, 180–187. Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics, and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257–279. Pannapacker, W. (2009). How to procrastinate like Leonardo da Vinci. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55, B4–B5. Penney, C., Godsell, A., Scott, A., & Balsom, R. (2004). Problem variables that promote incubation effects. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 35–55. Pinxten, M., De Laet, T., Van Soom, C., Peeters, C., & Langie, G. (2019). Purposeful delay and academic achievement. A critical review of the Active Procrastination Scale. Learning & Individual Differences, 73, 42–51. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. Ratsameemonthon, L., Ho, R., Tuicomepee, A., & Blauw, J. N. (2018). Influence of achievement goals and academic self-efficacy on academic achievement of thai undergraduate students: across non procrastinators and procrastinators. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 16, 243–271. Rothblum, E., Solomon, L., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 387–394. Salgado, J. (1997). The five-factor model of personality and job performance. European Community Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43. Scheerer, M. (1963). Problem-solving. Scientific American, 208, 118–128. Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of academic procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 12–25. Segal, E. (2004). Incubation in insight problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 141–148. Shalley, C., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here. Journal of Management, 30, 933–958. Silvia, P., Winterstein, B., Willse, J., Barona, C., Cram, J., & Hess, K. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68–85. Simon, H. A. (1966). Scientific discovery and the psychology of problem solving. In R. G. Colodny (Ed.). Mind and cosmos: Essays in contemporary science and philosophy (pp. 22– 40). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Smith, D. K., Paradice, D. B., & Smith, S. M. (2000). Prepare Your Mind for Creativity. Communications of the ACM, 43, 110–116. Smith, S. M. (1994). Getting into and out of mental ruts: A theory of fixation, incubation, and insight. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. Davidson (Eds.). The nature of insight (pp. 229– 251). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Smith, S. M. (1995). Fixation, incubation, and insight in memory and creative thinking. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.). The creative cognitive approach (pp. 135– 156). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Smith, S. M. (2003). The constraining effects of initial ideas. In P. Paulus, & B. Nijstad (Eds.). Group creativity (pp. 15–31). New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, S. M., & Beda, Z. (2019). Old problems in new contexts: The context-dependent fixation hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Advance online

11

Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109640

S. Zanjani, et al. publication. Smith, S. M., & Blankenship, S. (1989). Incubation effects. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 311–314. Smith, S. M., & Blankenship, S. E. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 104, 61–87. Smith, S. M., & Linsey, J. (2011). A three pronged approach for overcoming design fixation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 83–91. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94. Steel, P. (2010). Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: Do they exist. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 926–934. Subotnik, R., Steiner, C., & Chakraborty, B. (1999). Procrastination revisited: The constructive use of delayed response. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 151–160. Tamir, M. (2005). Don't worry, be happy? Neuroticism, trait-consistent affect regulation, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 449. Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., & Sajilan, S. (2017). Testing and controlling for common method variance: a review of available methods. Journal of Management Sciences, 4, 142–168. Tice, D., & Baumeister, R. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress, and health: The cost and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8,

454–458. Tuckman, B., & Sexton, T. (1989). Effects of relative feedback in overcoming procrastination on academic tasks. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Vul, E., & Pashler, H. (2007). Incubation benefits only after people have been misdirected. Memory & Cognition, 35, 701–710. Walker, A., Koestner, R., & Hum, A. (1995). Personality correlates of depressive style in autobiographies of creative achievers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29, 75–94. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt. Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story writing, and hobbies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 297–310. Wolters, C. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 179–187. Woodworth, R., & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Zanjani, S. H. A., Milne, G. R., & Miller, E. G. (2016). Procrastinators' online experience and purchase behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 568–585. Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. (2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 333–359.

12