Home > Subjects > Psychology > The Relationship Between Personality Types, Perfectionism, And Procrastination Among Students

The Relationship Between Personality Types, Perfectionism, And Procrastination Among Students


The main objective of this research was to examine the relationship between personality types, perfectionism, and procrastination among post-graduate research students. It was hypothesized that there is likely to be a relationship between personality types, perfectionism, and procrastination among post-graduate research students. A sample of 150 participants was included from different departments of the University of the Punjab, age range between 22-26 years. The measures were Ten Item Personality Inventory (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003), the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R) (Slaney et al., 1996 and Slaney et al., 2001), Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986), and a self-constructed Demographic Questionnaire. The data was analyzed through Pearson Product Moment Correlation and also through regression. The gender differences were analyzed by independent sample t-test.

Chapter I

  1. Introduction

With the inception, which is nearly as old as the humankind itself, procrastination behavior continues to exist today on a universal scale. Knaus (2000) argues that procrastination behavior might have originated when people that lives in clans 2.5 million years ago doesn’t carry out the works to be done on time and delayed them instead. Although procrastination behavior is being studied by people since early time, it has only been intensively studied over the last 30 to 35 years (Milgram, Mey-Tal &Levison, 1998). Perfectionism as well as procrastination are the things towards which students tremendously attracted. It is known that there is a relationship between academic procrastination behavior which is usual among students and certain factors. Another factor that has a relation with academic procrastination is encouraged. Bronlow & Reasinger (2000) have communicative with their studies that students with higher or great level of powerful self-level is less likely to be seen academic procrastination behavior that Studies carried out have demounts those with a lower level of inner drive rate, that there is positive bounding between poor time management and academic procrastination (Balkıs, E. Duru, Buluş& S. Duru, 2006). As well as ability to manage time effectively and motivation, procrastination behavior is in relation with such factors as responsibility (Lee, Kelly & Edwards, 2006; Lay, Kovacs & Danto, 1998; Johnson & Bloom, 2000), avoidance coping (Bridges &Roig, 1997) and fear of losing. (Özer & Altun, 2011).  Recent researches have shown us that attitude of perfectionism and procrastination in postgraduate research students having variable types of personalities according to 5 big personality model.

  • Big Five Personality Traits

The notion of the “Five Big” personality traits having broad domains that describes personality, are being taken from psychology.

These five personality traits are used to grab the relationship between personality and various behaviors.

The “Five Big” personality traits consists the following:

Extraversion (narrated as being friendly), assertive and sociable).

Conscientiousness (recounted as being organized, dependable, and motivated).

Agreeableness (reported as being cooperative, trusting, and helpful).

Openness to new experience (related as being emotional, curious, creative, imaginative, and hereafter referred to as, Openness).

Neuroticism (associated with easily being made to feel upset, angry, anxious, or depressed).

  1. Openness –Openness is an individual’s degree of cerebral curiosity, creativity, and preference for freshness and diversity. Some variety remains about how to illuminate this factor, which is sometimes called comprehensive.
  2. Conscientiousness – Conscientiousness is an act to show self-mastery, act dutifully, and determination for achieving something. Conscientiousness also describes forethought, organization, and reliability.
  3. Extraversion – Extraversion recount energy, positive feelings, assertiveness, sociability, talkativeness, and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others.
  4. Agreeableness – Agreeableness has a power to be compassionate and cooperative towards others rather than suspicious and antagonistic.
  5. Neuroticism – Neuroticism refers to an individual’s level of emotional stability and impulse control and is sometimes referred to asemotional stability.

Neuroticism reflects vulnerability to unpleasant emotions like anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability.


Perfectionism is a composite and several dimensions personality construct (Hewitt and Flett, 2004).  The various aspects of perfectionism are differentiated on the behaveof their origin (e.g., self vs. social) and their cognitive manifestations (e.g., high standards, doubts about action, etc.). For instance, Hewitt and Flett (2004) have distinguished between the intrapersonal and interpersonal ways of perfectionism. Most importantly self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) represents the self-imposed tendency to strive toward perfection by establishing high standards upon which a person judges and defines him/herself.

In contrast, socially described perfectionism (SPP) is constructed around the perception that significant others are exerting pressure to be perfect, to the extent that very high standards of excellence must be attain for the person to feel valued by others.

There is now clear evidence that SPP (and other dimensions known to be conceptually related to SPP, such as doubts about action and concerns over mistakes) predicts a host of negative outcomes related to academic adjustment and on the other hand, The adaptive vs. the maladaptive nature of perfectionism has led to much research in the educational literature. Such research reveals that the two types of perfectionism tend to lead to differential effects on academic adjustment. Importantly, SPP has been continuously associated with extreme levels of darker affect (Bieling, Israeli, Smith, & Antony, 2003), depression (Flett, Besser, Hewitt, & Davis, 2007), anxiety (Bong et al., 2014), stress (Ashby, Noble, &Gnilka, 2012), and low levels of performance (Verner-Filion&Gaudreau, 2010) in the academic aspect.

On the other side, the status of SOP (and other dimensions known to be conceptually related to SOP, such as high standards and personal standards) remains ambiguous. Studies in the academic record  have shown that SOP positively indicates negative outcomes such as depression and stress (Hewitt &Flett, 2004), as well as positive outcomes like positive affect (Frost et al., 2000), subjective well-being (Miquelon et al., 2005), life satisfaction (Ashby et al., 2012), and achievement-related outcomes, such as academic performance (Cox, Enns, & Clara, 2002). Other studies have also shown that SOP is either unrelated (Bieling, Israeli, & Antony, 2004) or negatively related (Ashby et al., 2012) to facts of emotional distress, such as depression, anxiety and stress. The ambiguous results obtained in past research regarding the status of SOP in academic adjustment thus highlight the importance of studying the mediating variables that could explain when SOP leads to adaptive outcomes and when it predicts maladaptive academic outcomes.

  • Procrastination

Procrastination can be defined as the voluntary, irrational delay of an intended course of action despite the knowledge that this delay will come at a cost to or have negative effects on the individual (Lay, 2004 and Steel, 2007). Typically, researchers have conceptualized procrastination to avoid or escape unpleasant tasks (avoidance procrastination), exemplified by rationalizations such as: “This task is too boring; I’ll come back to it later.” Procrastination originating from this motivation is supported by a sizable amount of research. In contrast, an arousal procrastinator (i.e., one who delays a task to seek stimulation) has also been proposed. This type of individual procrastinates with the hopes of attaining a “rush” from completing a task near the deadline (Ferrari, 2002). A rationalization stemming from this motivation to procrastinate would be: “I will do it now because I work under pressure.”

Procrastination can be defined as the delay that is due to the avoidance of the implementation of an intention (Van Eerde, 2000, p. 375 It is a common behavior , as not less than 25% of the adult population considers themselves procrastinators (Ferrari, Diaz-Morales, O’Callaghan, Diaz, & Argumedo, 2007). Although it is a common behavior it could vary across different areas, for instance across the academic, work, leisure, and family domains (Klingsieck, 2013).

  • Rationale

Due to involvement of increasing technology in our routine lives, the phenomenon of procrastination among students is of great importance than ever. There is a high frequency of procrastinators in our society that leads to lower levels of productivity in important social, occupational and academic areas. The present study aims to find out under lying factors behind the procrastinating behavior. Studying different dimensions of personality types, perfectionism and their impact on procrastination can be effective in many areas including academic and occupational.

  • Objectives

The objectives of this study are;

  • To assess the relationship between personality types, perfectionism and procrastination among post-graduate research students
  • To assess the personality types and perfectionism as a predictor of procrastination among post-graduate research students
  • To evaluate demographics as predictor of personality types, perfectionism and procrastination among post-graduate research students
  • To determine gender differences in personality types, perfectionism and procrastination among post-graduate research students
  • Hypotheses

Following are the four hypotheses that are being tested in the study:

  1. There is likely to be a significant relationship between personality types, perfectionism and procrastination among post-graduate research students
  2. Personality types and perfectionism are likely to predict procrastination among post-graduate research students
  3. Demographics are likely to predict personality types, perfectionism and procrastination among post-graduate research students
  4. There are likely to be significant gender differences in personality types, perfectionism and procrastination among post-graduate research students

Chapter II


  • Research design

The current research is being conducted through cross-sectional research design in order to explore personality types, perfectionism and procrastination among post graduate university students.

  • Sample

The sample is comprised of N=150, (75 male) and (75 female), post graduate research students age range between 22-26 years. The sample was taken from the University of the Punjab, Lahore.Non-probability purposive sampling strategy was used to collect the data

  • Inclusion criteria. Male and female post graduateregular university students were included. Research students age range between 22-26 were included.
  • Exclusion criteria. Students with physical disabilities or any psychiatric condition were excluded.

Table 3.1

Demographics showing sample characteristics (N=30)

Characteristics M SD f %
Age (years) 24.13 1.22










     Male 15 50

Marital status












Birth order













Family system







Regional affiliation

















Note. M=Mean; SD=Standard Deviation; f=frequency; %=percentage

  • Assessment measures

Following measures were administered to participants as research tools:

  • Demographic Questionnaire. A self-constructed demographic questionnaire was administered in addition to research questionnaires. Demographic questionnaire included name, age, gender, class, father education, mother education, family system and family income, no. of siblings, and marital status.
  • Ten Item Personality Inventory. To measure the big five personality traits Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) was used. The TIPI is a 10-item measure of the Big Five (or Five-Factor Model) dimensions developed by Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann in 2003. To meet the need for a very brief measure, 5 and 10-item inventories were developed and evaluated. Although somewhat inferior to standard multi-item instruments, the instruments reached adequate levels in terms of (a) convergence with widely used Big-Five measures in self, observer, and peer reports, (b) test-retest reliability, (c) patterns of predicted external correlates, and (d) convergence between self and observer ratings.
  • The Almost Perfect Scale. To measure perfectionism, The Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R) (Slaney et al., 1996and Slaney et al., 2001) was used. The APS-R was developed to assess the adaptive and the maladaptive components of perfectionism. It consists of 23 items and three subscales: a) High Standards (7 items) subscale measures the high personal standards one sets for oneself (e.g., I expect the best from myself); b) Discrepancy subscale (12 items) assesses respondents’ perceived inadequacy in meeting personal standards (e.g., I am never satisfied with my accomplishments); and c) Order (4 items), refers to one’s preference for neatness and orderliness (e.g., I am an orderly person). Participants responded to each item using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I strongly disagree) to 7 (I strongly agree). The Spanish adaptation of the APS-R was made in accordance with the international guidelines for test translation and adaptation (Muñiz, Elosua, & Hambleton, 2013).
  • Procrastination scale. Procrastination scale (student form) was originally developed by Lay in 2000. It is a 20-item likert type scale with response categories, 1=Extremely Characteristic, 2=Moderately Characteristic, 3=Neutral, 4=Moderately Uncharacteristic, 5=Extremely Uncharacteristic. (e.g. I often find myself performing tasks that I had intended to do days before). This scale is used to assess procrastination in students. Item number 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 20 were reverse coded. Cut off score was 55 which indicated that scores above 55 shows high procrastination. Reliability of the scale is .63.

2.4 Procedure

An authority letter from the Department of Applied Psychology exploring the nature of the research and request for the permission of data collection was taken. Permission letters were signed by the directors of different departments from where data was collected. After permission process, the instruments were taken to the participants. The researcher explained the nature and purpose of the study before taking the written consent from those who met the inclusion criteria and were willing to participate. The questionnaires were distributed to the sample personally and were asked to fill up the questionnaires independently and honestly. They were assured about the confidentiality of their responses. They were also informed that they could withdraw from study any time they feel inconvenience. The questionnaires were completed within the presence of the researcher. The assessment measures demographic form, 10 Item Personality Inventory, Almost Perfect Scale, and procrastination scale were completed by the participants. The examinees were instructed to fill all the items of the questionnaires and if they did not do that their responses will not be considered for results and questionnaire will become invalid. The average time each participant taken to fill the questionnaires was 25-30 minutes.

  • Statistical Analysis

The data was analyzed through SPSS version 23. The main hypothesis was examined through regression, independent sample t-test and Pearson product-moment correlation.

  • Ethical consideration

The study had been designed on ethical standards, to initiate the study; an authority letter duly signed by the head of the Institute of Applied Psychology, University of the Punjab, Lahore and the supervisor was taken for data collection. The permission was also sought from the authorities of the concerned departments. The procedure and purpose was thoroughly explained to the participant and prior written informed consent was taken from them individually. Only those participants were included who were willing to participate and if anyone was not ready to fill the questionnaire he or she was not forced to do that as it would not only disturb the participant but also affect the results. The confidentiality of information and anonymity of the participants were maintained.

Chapter III


The study was aimed to find out the relationship between personality types, perfectionism, and procrastination among post-graduate research students.

Big Five personality traits are the basic five personality factors of an individual’s personality including neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Perfectionism is a person’s striving for flawlessness and setting high performance standards, accompanied by critical self-evaluations and concerns regarding others’ evaluations. Procrastination can be defined as the voluntary, irrational delay of an intended course of action despite the knowledge that this delay will come at a cost to or have negative effects on the individual.

Descriptive statistics and reliability analysis were applied to explore the personality traits, perfectionism, and procrastinationin the targeted population. Mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum and Cronbach alpha of study variables were obtained.

Results are displayed in the table 3.1

Table 3.1

Descriptive statistics and reliabilities of study variables (N=30)

Variables M SD Mini-Max a
Actual Potential
Personality Traits

Emotional stability






























Perfectionism 102.77 14.55 25-112 23-115 .80
Procrastination 62.57 7.08 24-97 20-100 .67

Note. M=Mean; SD=Standard Deviation; Mini=Minimum value; Max= Maximum value; α = Cronbach alpha

It was hypothesized that personality traits and perfectionism are likely to have a relationship with procrastination. Pearson product moment correlation was utilized to assess the relationships among the demographics and the study variables. Results obtained are displayed in the table 3.2

Table 3.2

Pearson Product Moment Correlation indicates association among age, gender, personality traits, academic self-concept, test anxiety, and academic performance (N=30)

Var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.Gender -.03 -.04 .11 -.09 .14 -.25 -.13 .01
2.Family system .46** .09 .16 .11 -.01 .55** .52*
3. Extraversion -.02 .08 .09 .45* .22 .02*
4.Agreeableness .16 -.21 -.22 .09 .01
5.Concientiousness .23 .01 .08 -.28**
6.Emotional stability -.24 .33 .42
7.Openness -.34 -.37
8.Perfectionism .78***

Note.*.p < .05; **.p< .01; ***.p< .001; BJW= Belief in Just World; M= Mean; SD= Standard Deviation

It showed that family system has significant positive relationship with procrastination. Results also reflected that among personality traits, extraversion has a significant positive relationship with procrastination (r=.02*, p<.05) on the other hand, conscientiousness has a significant negative relationship with procrastination (r=-.28**, p<.01). While, perfectionism has a highly significant positive correlation with procrastination (r=.78***, p<.001).

Independent sample t test was used in order to explore the gender differences with respect to study variables that are personality types, perfectionism, and procrastination. Results of variance analyses to compare the means for each variable concerning the differences of gender are presented in table 3.3

Table 3.3

Independent Sample t test shows gender difference in personality traits, perfectionism, and procrastination (N=30)

Variables Male




95 % CI  

Cohen’s d

M SD M SD t(28) P LL UL
Emotional stability 7.89 3.32 8.83 3.35 -.56 .15 -3.49 1.6 .12
Extraversion 8.78 4.00 8.50 3.90 .28 .45 -2.75 3.30 .32
Openness 10.89 2.19 9.67 2.67 1.47 .12 -.61 3.05 .27
Agreeableness 10.61 1.79 10.17 2.44 .47 .35 -1.13 2.02 .26
Conscientiousness 9.83 2.12 9.42 2.31 .53 .21 -1.26 2.09 .15
Perfectionism 103.54 14.67 100.33 13.96 -.04 .37 -3.69 3.58 .08
Procrastination 76.43 6.51 63.53 7.42 .47* .04 -.47 .27 .38

Note.*p < .05; M= Mean; SD= Standard Deviation; CI=Confidence Interval; LL= Lower Limit; UL= Upper Limit.

Result showed that there were significant gender difference in procrastination (t=.47*, p<.05). Furthermore, females reflected higher score on procrastination than males.

Regression analyses were applied to explore the effects of Personality traits and perfectionism on procrastination.

Table 3.4 presents the results of the regression analyses.

Table 3.4
Multiple regression used to indicate the predictors of academic performance (N=30)








Constant 3.76 .84 6.69
Emotional stability -.03 -.11 .04
Extraversion -.01 -.20 .07
Openness -.01 -.16 .13
Agreeableness -.04 -.15 .07
Conscientiousness .06 -.05 .17
Perfectionism .02 -3.69 3.58
Procrastination -.01 -.47 .27
R2 .16
F .39
∆R2 .16
∆F .39

Note.*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001; B = Unstandardized Co efficient; ∆R2= R Square change; ∆F= F change; CI=Confidence Interval

Overall model for procrastination related to personality types, and perfectionism explained 16% of the variance in procrastination, F (2, 28) =.39, p<.001and indicated that one personality trait that is extraversion is a positive predictor of procrastination whereas another personality trait that is conscientiousness is a negative predictors of procrastination. Perfectionism is also a positive predictor of procrastination. While, other personality traits did not predict the procrastination.

Summary of results

The results of the study showed that procrastination was significantly positively associated with extraversion as well as perfectionism which means that higher the person tend to be extraverted and perfectionist, the more he/she will show procrastination behavior and vice versa. It was also revealed that conscientiousness is negatively associated with procrastination which means that higher level of conscientiousness will lead to lower level of procrastination and vice versa. Itis also revealed that alpha reliability for all of the scales ishighly significant in this study. Moreover; the results showed that gender differences also prevail in procrastination, as females have more tendency to involve in procrastination as compared to males.

Chapter IV


The purpose of the current research study was to find out the relationship among personality types, perfectionism, and procrastination among post-graduate research students. The results of the research study are discussed below so that it might help in better understanding.

First of all it was hypothesized that there is relationship between big five personality traits, perfectionism and procrastination among post-graduate research students. The results showed that there was positive relationship between perfectionism, and procrastination. These findings are consistent with Cox, Enns, & Clara(2002) research whose findings showed that overall quantifications of perfectionismis linked to procrastination. Depending on the nature of an individuals’ personality, they may be either positively or negatively related.

However, among personality types, extraversion has a positive relationship with procrastination while conscientiousness has a negative relationship with the procrastination. This results were consistent with the previous research conducted by Balkıs, E. Duru, Buluş & S. Duru (2006) in which results indicated the negative relationship between conscientiousness and procrastination.

Second, it was hypothesized that big five personality traits and perfectionism are likely to predict procrastination among post-graduate research students. The findings supported the hypothesis partially. Some of personality traits including extraversion and conscientiousness were found to be positive and negative predictors of procrastination, respectively. This finding was consistent with the findings of a research conducted by Duru, E., &Balkıs, M. (2014) in which personality traits such as openness to new experience and conscientiousness were found to be negative predictors of procrastination.

On the other hand, perfectionism was also found to be a significant positive predictor of procrastination. This finding was also consistent with the study of Boysan & Kiral (2016) in which perfectionism was a positive predictor of procrastination.

Third, it was also hypothesized that there are significant gender differences in personality types, perfectionism, and procrastination among post-graduate research students. The research findings showed that there was significant difference in procrastination between male and female participants as it was hypothesized. But there were no gender differences in personality types and perfectionism. This finding was consistent with a previous research finding conducted by Kağan (2009)in which results showed significant gender differences in procrastination. Males were less likely to indulge in procrastination as compared to females.

4.1 Limitations and Suggestions

Despite the innovative character of this study and its implications for research and practice, this study is subject to some limitations. First, the present study relied on self-report measures of personality types, perfectionism and procrastination, so it is unknown to which extent thesemeasures reflect actual behavior of sample. It might be possible that some respondents provided socially desirable answers. To crosscheck the responses, these constructs should be measured through another method

Second, the results of this study rely on cross-sectional data; as such this makes it difficult to establish causality. Fourth, for this study a non-probability sampling technique was used for sample selection which decreases the opportunity of equal selection of sample. This might limit the generalizability of our results. Alternative participant recruitment and data collection strategies might be needed to minimize sampling bias in future studies.

Last but important limitation, the sample size for this study was small which is not enough to generalize the results to whole population. So for future research sample size should be large enough.

4.2 Conclusion

The findings of this study provided interesting indications for the relationship between personality traits, perfectionism and procrastination. The more the people are extraverted, the more they were likely to be indulged in procrastination. Similarly, the more people are perfectionist, the more they will indulge in procrastination. On the other hand, increase in conscientiousness leads to lower levels of procrastination. These evidences can be useful to realize educational interventions for the enhancement of social competence and psychological adjustment overall in social situations.

  • Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2004). Perfectionism, cognition, and affect in response to performance failure vs. success. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy22(4), 297-324.
  • Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Antony, M. M. (2004). Is perfectionism good, bad, or both? Examining models of the perfectionism construct. Personality and individual    differences36(6), 1373-1385.
  • Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A., Smith, J., & Antony, M. M. (2003). Making the grade: The behavioural consequences of perfectionism in the classroom.Personality and Individual Differences35(1), 163-178.
  • Brownlow, S., &Reasinger, R. D. (2000). Putting off until tomorrow what is better done today:   Academic procrastination as a function of motivation toward college work. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality15(5), 15.
  • Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002). The multidimensional structure of perfectionism in clinically distressed and college student samples.Psychological assessment14(3), 365.
  • Flett, G. L., Besser, A., Hewitt, P. L., & Davis, R. A. (2007). Perfectionism, silencing the self, and depression. Personality and Individual Differences,43(5), 1211-1222.
  • Gnilka, P. B., Ashby, J. S., & Noble, C. M. (2012). Multidimensional perfectionism and anxiety: Differences among individuals with perfectionism and tests of a coping‐mediation model. Journal of Counseling & Development90(4), 427-436.
  • Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in personality37(6), 504-528.
  • Klingsieck, K. B. (2013). Procrastination. European Psychologist.
  • Lay, C., Kovacs, A., & Danto, D. (1998). The relation of trait procrastination to the big-five factor conscientiousness: an assessment with primary-junior school children based on self-report scales. Personality and Individual Differences25(2), 187-193.
  • Lee, D. G., Kelly, K. R., & Edwards, J. K. (2006). A closer look at the relationships among trait procrastination, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Personality and Individual Differences40(1), 27-37.
  • Özer, A., &Altun, E. (2011). The Reasons for academic procrastination among university students. Mehmet AkifErsoyÜniversitesiEğitimFakültesiDergisi11(21), 45-72.
  • Verner-Filion, J., &Gaudreau, P. (2010). From perfectionism to academic adjustment: The mediating role of achievement goals. Personality and Individual Differences49(3), 181-186.

Demographic Questionnaire

Name: ____________________

Age:    _______________________

Gender: __________________

Class:   ______________________

No. of siblings: ______________________

Birth order ___________

Marital Status:  __________________

Education level _________________

Age of mother _______________

Age of father ________________

Occupation of mother __________________

Occupation of father ___________________

Father’s Education:     ____________________

Mother’s Education:   ____________________

Family income: ______________________

Family System:                       Joint                            Nuclear

Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)

Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann (2003)

Here are a number of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Please write a number next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement. You should rate the extent to which the pair of traits applies to you, even if one characteristic applies more strongly than the other.

I see myself as:

Sr. no. Statement Disagree strongly Disagree moderately Disagree a little Neither agree nor disagree Agree a little Agree moderately Agree strongly
1 Extraverted, enthusiastic. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 Critical, quarrelsome. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 Dependable, self-disciplined. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 Anxious, easily upset. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 Open to new experiences, complex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 Reserved, quiet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 Sympathetic, warm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 Disorganized, careless. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 Calm, emotionally stable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 Conventional, uncreative. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R)

Slaney et al. (2001)


The following items are designed to measure attitudes people have towardthemselves, their performance, and toward others. There are no right or wrong answers.Please respond to all of the items. Use your first impression and do not spend too muchtime on individual items in responding.Respond to each of the items using the scale below to describe your degree ofagreement with each item. Fill in the appropriate number circle on the computer answersheet that is provided.

Sr. no. Statement Strongly


Disagree Slightly


Neutral Slightly


Agree Strongly


1 I have high standards for my performance at work or at school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 I am an orderly person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 I often feel frustrated because I can’t meet my goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 Neatness is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 If you don’t expect much out of yourself, you will never succeed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 My best just never seems to be good enough for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 I think things should be put away in their place 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 I have high expectations for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 I rarely live up to my high standards. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 I like to always be organized and disciplined. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11 Doing my best never seems to be enough. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12 I set very high standards for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13 I am never satisfied with my accomplishments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14 I expect the best from myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15 I often worry about not measuring up to my own expectations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16 My performance rarely measures up to my standards. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17 I am not satisfied even when I know I have done my best. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18 I try to do my best at everything I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19 I am seldom able to meet my own high standards of performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20 I am hardly ever satisfied with my performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21 I hardly ever feel that what I’ve done is good enough. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22 I have a strong need to strive for excellence. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23 I often feel disappointment after completing a task because I know I could have done better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Procrastination Scale – For student populations



People may use the following statements to describe themselves. For each statement, decide whether the statement is uncharacteristic or characteristic of you using the following 5 point scale. Note that the 3 on the scale is Neutral – the statement is neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic of you. Mark the number on the 5 point scale that best describes you.

Sr. no. Statement Extremely




Neutral Moderately




1 I often find myself performing tasks that I had intended to do days before. 1 2 3 4 5
2 I do not do assignments until just before they are to be handed in. 1 2 3 4 5
3 When I am finished with a library book, I return it right away regardless of the date it is due. 1 2 3 4 5
4 When it is time to get up in the morning, I most often get right out of bed. 1 2 3 4 5
5 A letter may sit for days after I write it before mailing it. 1 2 3 4 5
6 I generally return phone calls promptly. 1 2 3 4 5
7 Even with jobs that require little else except sitting down and doing them, I find they seldom get done for days. 1 2 3 4 5
8 I usually make decisions as soon as possible. 1 2 3 4 5
9 I generally delay before starting on work I have to do. 1 2 3 4 5
10 I usually have to rush to complete a task on time. 1 2 3 4 5
11 When preparing to go out, I am seldom caught having to do something at the last minute. 1 2 3 4 5
12 In preparing for some deadline, I often waste time by doing other things. 1 2 3 4 5
13 I prefer to leave early for an appointment. 1 2 3 4 5
14 I usually start an assignment shortly after it is assigned. 1 2 3 4 5
15 I often have a task finished sooner than necessary. 1 2 3 4 5
16 I always seem to end up shopping for birthday or Christmas gifts at the last minute. 1 2 3 4 5
17 I usually buy even an essential item at the last minute. 1 2 3 4 5
18 I usually accomplish all the things I plan to do in a day. 1 2 3 4 5
19 I am continually saying “I’ll do it tomorrow”. 1 2 3 4 5
20 I usually take care of all the tasks I have to do before I settle down and relax for the evening. 1 2 3 4 5


Related Posts

Leave a Comment

11 − 10 =