A Correlational Pilot Study Examining
Affect and Procrastination on the Internet
Kathy Harriott
Abstract
Fifty-four participants, between 16 and 58 years old took
part in this study examining the relationship between how much
time people spend on the Internet, the degree of procrastination,
and how they felt about their time on-line. Three questionnaires
were posted on the World-Wide Web to collect data. The first
questionnaire asked questions pertaining to demographics, and
feelings connected to use of the Internet. The second was the
Composite Measures of Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1985). The third
was the General Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986). As predicted,
positive correlations were found between Internet procrastination
and negative affect, and negative correlations were found between
Internet procrastination and positive affect. However, when the
sample was divided into student/non-student groups, students
procrastinating on-line were not feeling significant negative
affect. It is unclear if the Internet is causing procrastination
or if the Internet is just a tool used to procrastinate. Although
the sample was small the findings are interesting and further
research is indicated to establish causality. iii
A Correlational Pilot Study Examining Affect and
Procrastination on the Internet
Kathy Harriott
A number of authors and researchers have noted the prevalence
of Internet use and recognize the resultant social changes that
are occurring in human relations because of it (e.g., Griffiths,
1997; Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay & Scherlis,
1998; Smith & Leigh, 1997). These changes have been compared to
those surrounding the arrival of the radio, the telephone and
television (Griffiths, 1997; Kraut et al., 1998). The popular
press (e.g. Psychology Today) has also become interested in
Internet use and have published articles specifically discussing
Internet use and overuse. On the whole, these authors and
researchers agree that the Internet has, and will continue to
have, an impact on our lives and consequently is an important area
of continued research.
Computing Canada (Feb. 23, 1998) states that there are 30
million machines connected to the Internet, and that there had
been a 14% growth over the previous 6 months. In the US, it is
believed that 40% of households will have personal computers, and
1/3 of those will have access to the Internet (Kraut et al.,
1
1998). However, as Scheuermann and Langford (1997, p. 847) point
out, "Every asset has the potential for abuse." Just as the
telephone and typewriter were available to employees to conduct
personal business, so is the Internet. Michael Welles, president
of EdWel & Co., a performance and training consulting firm,
declares that the Internet is the "water cooler" of the nineties
(Sunoo, 1996), only better, because employees look as if they are
busy.
If people are using the Internet as the high-tech water
cooler, and if on-line access at work is increasing, then
"loafing" on the job with use of the Internet is probably
occurring. According to a survey conducted by Sunoo, (1996), 63%
of Human Resource managers believe employees are spending
increasing amounts of time "surfing the net" or engaging in other
distracting past-times. This is a problem given that loafing on
the job, by definition, is stealing from the employer. Sunoo
(1996) calculates that if each employee of a large company (i.e.,
1,000 employees or greater) wastes time on the Internet for 1 1/2
hours per day, at $20 per hour, the company is losing $30,000.00
per day to idleness. Nancy Probst of the North Broward Medical
Centre in Florida suggests that if workers are loafing on the job
2
that it may not be intentional, but due to feelings of "fear,
depression and malaise" (cited in Sunoo, 1996). Sunoo argues that
these feelings may be promoted and exaggerated by the strain of
downsizing, having to learn new technologies, stress or tedium.
While some researchers believe that Internet use may be as
benign as loafing, other researchers are exploring the possibility
that use or overuse of the Internet may be more accurately
described as an addiction (Griffiths, 1995; Shaffer 1996; Shotton
1991; Brenner, 1997 and Young, 1996). Griffiths (1995)
established that technological addictions exist, while also
attempting to develop criteria that could be applied to determine
whether or not a person is addicted to Internet use. Shaffer
(1996) also discusses Internet gambling and Internet use in terms
of addictions. As he indicates, there is no shared definition of
addiction in current diagnostic manuals, a viewpoint also held by
Young (1996). Shaffer's contention is that addiction is the
result of shifts in subjective experience, and that new technology
and the Internet are dependable ways to alter subjective
experience (Shaffer, 1996). According to Shaffer, it is the
relationship a person has with the object of
3
their addiction, either behavioural or physical, that defines
addiction and addictive activities. Young (1996) also holds this
belief, and also points out that the amount of time spent on the
Internet should not be the only criteria used for assessing
whether an addiction is present. She argues that other symptoms
of Internet addiction, like alcohol and drug addiction, include
tolerance, withdrawal, conflict and relapse (Young, 1996).
Griffiths' (1996) research supports Shaffer's and Young's work and
presents evidence that behavioural addictions have comparable
consequences to the more researched and accepted alcohol and drug
addictions. For instance, some comparable effects of behavioural
and physical addictions are loss of sleep, marital breakdown, and
neglecting social obligations and other commitments (Griffiths,
1996). Although there is growing acceptance that addictions can
be behavioural, and Moulton (1998) describes Internet addicts as
"Cyberdependents" or suffering from "Internet Addiction
Disorder," the Addiction Research Foundation (ARF) states this
classification is not universally recognized. Consequently,
associating addiction with Internet overuse may be hasty (Brenner,
1997, and Huang and Alessi, 1997).
Given this reluctance of the ARF, defining Internet use as
4
an addiction may be overstating the issue of Internet overuse.
Perhaps "loafing" on the Internet may be more aptly described as
procrastination. In general terms, the popular press has taken
up the matter of procrastination, with publications on the topic
in such forums as Seventeen, Homemaker's Magazine, and the
Financial Post. Considering the diverse audience of these
periodicals, it is clear procrastination is a topic of interest
and concern to many people. Researchers who have delved into the
area of procrastination, have used different definitions of
procrastination, yet they have highlighted common themes
throughout.
For example, Silver and Sabini (1981), argue that
procrastination involves recognizing "what one ought to do." They
contend that we choose a procrastinatory activity that can be
completed in a short amount of time so that it can be dropped
quickly and we can return to the task at hand. In this respect
procrastinating on the Internet may fit Silver and Sabini's (1981)
conception, as we often work in various capacities and for a
variety of purposes at our computers, and the Internet can be
quickly and easily accessed, yet not take us away from our work
station. To others, it would appear we are still hard at work.
5
In addition, log-on times can be brief. After all, it only takes
a minute or two to check our email.
Ferrari (1991a), on the other hand, describes both
behavioural and decisional procrastination. The first being a
"general tendency to postpone everyday tasks" and the latter being
an "inability to make timely decisions." Ferrari (1991b) contends
that by delaying completion of a task, procrastinators are able to
avoid situations where they will be evaluated and choose
circumstances where their public image will not be damaged by a
poor performance. Given Ferrari's assertion, one might expect
high procrastinators to be drawn to the anonymity of the Internet
where their public image can be protected.
It has also been suggested that procrastination is a form of
revenge, and that retaliation may be occurring because of
perceived wrongs (Kim, Smith & Rubin, (1991) as cited in Ferrari
and Emmons, 1994). Procrastination as a "passive-aggressive form
of revenge" may be used by those who feel powerless and have no
other means of revenge (Ferrari & Emmons, 1994). Lay (1986), also
suggests procrastination may be a type of rebellion against those
in power based on rancour because of "perceived unfairness." If
stress and downsizing are felt to be unjust by
6
employees, and is promoting "loafing" as Probst suggests (Sunoo,
1996), then procrastination on the Internet may be a form of
revenge by employees.
Not all research, however, has found computer use to be
linked with procrastination. For example, Walther's (1992)
research on Computer-Mediated Interaction (CMI) suggests that
participants in CMI groups are more task-oriented than
face-to-face groups. A few cautionary notes are warranted,
however, in that Walther's study was not directly related to
Internet use, and all of the experiments determining the
task-oriented nature of participants in Walther's study were time
limited, which may have affected outcomes. Although this study
was not directly related to Internet use, there is reason to
believe that company and school work will be, and is being,
conducted via email and the Internet, and the Internet is
currently being used to expedite work schedules and meetings.
Walther found that there was less dominance by one individual or
group, and there was a greater equality of participation and
greater status equality in CMI group discussion in comparison to
face-to-face group discussion.
Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler & McGuire (1986) also found
7
greater participation in CMI groups with less dominance by one
person and less inhibited interchanges measured by the use of
"inflammatory" responses and "swearing and name calling." Siegel
et al. (1986) believe computer mediated interaction will decrease
"feelings of embarrassment," yield "less social comparison with
others" as well as diminish "fears of penalty and
disapproval." In contrast to Walther's findings, Siegel et al.
(1986) found group decisions using computer mediated interaction
were slower than face-to-face interaction.
The Internet is a relatively new medium and consequently very
little research has been done examining the social ramifications
of Internet use. Research concerning Internet use has focused
primarily on the perceived addictive qualities of the Internet and
the links between procrastination and Internet use have not been
studied. The present study was designed to explore if and how
people use the Internet to procrastinate. This survey was devised
to examine how much time participants spent on the Internet, how
they felt about the time they spent on-line, and whether that time
was productive, as opposed to procrastinatory. It was
hypothesized that the more time participants spent unproductively
on-line, the more negative affect they would feel. 8
Conversely, it was hypothesized that those who regard the Internet
as entertaining and an important tool would experience less
negative affect and greater positive affect.
9
Method
Participants
The data were collected by means of a questionnaire posted on
the Internet. To participate in this survey the only criterion
was access to the Internet. The questionnaire could be found on
the Internet by visiting the Procrastination Research Group (PRG)
web page (Appendix A) at http://www.carleton.ca/~tpychyl.
Participants were not actively recruited and could only have found
the survey if they were looking for information on
procrastination. It is therefore probably a safe assumption that
those who accessed the PRG web page were self-identified
procrastinators.
Materials
The survey posted to the World Wide Web consisted of four
parts: 1) demographics (sex, age, occupation, citizenship,
country of residence, and the State or Province if residing in
Canada or the USA, respectively). 2) Questions pertaining to the
individuals feelings and use of the Internet. 3) General
Procrastination Scale (GP, Lay, 1986), and 4) Measures of
Composite Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1985).
10
Feelings and Use of the Internet. Feelings and use of the
Internet was divided into two sections. The first part was a
general measure of personal perceptions about the Internet and
consisted of six items. For example, "I think the Internet is an
important tool" and "I often use the Internet to relieve stress."
Each item was scored on 5-point Likert-type scale (1=false of me;
5=true of me). The second part of this section was an extension
of the first, the difference being qualitative rather than
quantitative. This section consisted of five open-ended items,
such as "How many hours do you spend on the Internet every day?"
and "How many hours do you think you use the Internet to
procrastinate?" Responses to the qualitative questions, "Why do
you use the Internet?" and "How do you think about the time you
spend on the Internet?" were used for anecdotal support and
provided comparative and collaborative support for the
quantitative findings.
General Procrastination Scale. The General Procrastination
Scale (Lay, 1986) is a uni-dimensional measure of procrastination.
This version of the GP consists of 20 items, for example, "I
generally delay before starting on work I have to do" and "In
preparing for some deadlines, I often waste time by
11
doing other things." Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert-
type scale (1=false of me; 5=true of me). Ten items were
reverse-scored and ratings were summed for a single-scale score.
The GP has been found to have a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .78
(Ferrari, 1991) and test-retest reliability of .80 (Ferrari,
1989). Lay (1986) also found the GP to have a Cronbach alpha
coefficient of .83. The GP Scale has been found to measure
procrastination across a number of situations (Lay, 1986). For
example, Lay found the scale to have predictive validity in a
sample of travellers recruited at an airport. The GP scale was
administered and the participants were then asked to return an
envelope by post either on arrival at their destination, or three
days later. It was found that those who scored higher on the GP
scale were more likely to miss the assigned day for returning the
envelope (Lay, 1986). Lay also reports the scale has significant
correlations with rebelliousness (.34), organization (-.49), and
neurotic disorganization (.69), and achievement (-.09), suggesting
good concurrent validity (Lay, 1986).
Composite Measures of Affect. The Composite Measures of
Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1985) consists of nine adjectives. Four
of the adjectives represent positive affect items (i.e., happy,
12
joyful, pleased, and enjoyment/fun). The remaining five
adjectives represent negative affect items (i.e., unhappy,
depressed, frustrated, worried/anxious and angry/hostile). Two
additional measures of affect were added to the scale, guilt and
motivation. Guilt was included because there has been a
demonstrated relationship between procrastination and guilt
(Pychyl & Little, 1998). Motivation was added to the positive
affect items because it has been found that motivation has a
negative correlation with procrastination (Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau
and Blunt, in press). Participants indicated the extent to which
they had felt each of the eleven moods on a 7-point Likert-type
scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 7 (extremely much). A
composite positive affect score was produced by summing the
positive affect adjectives. The negative affect adjectives were
also summed to produce a composite negative affect score.
Reliability and internal alpha coefficients of the composite
affect scales have been demonstrated to approach .90 in early
studies (Diener & Larsen, 1984; Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1986),
and do not correlate significantly with measures of social
desirability (Emmons & Diener, 1985).
13
Procedure
When the Procrastination Research Group web page was
accessed, it offered a number of choices for those interested in
procrastination, "Participate in Research" being one of the
choices (Appendix A). Once an interested individual clicked on
"Participate in Research," the informed consent was accessed
(Appendix B). The informed consent expressed the voluntary nature
of the questionnaire, explained confidentiality of responses and
instructed participants that they could withdraw at any time. An
explanation of what would be required in participating and the
purpose of the research was also presented in the informed
consent. This section provided details on how to receive further
information about the project if required by participants. As it
was not possible to collect signatures, submission of answers was
considered informed consent.
A hypertext link, highlighted as "questionnaire," was
displayed at the end of the informed consent. Those individuals
wishing to continue could click on this link and the questionnaire
(Appendix C) was presented. The first section presented was
demographics followed by Feelings and Use of the Internet. The
General Procrastination Scale was the next scale
14
presented and finally the Composite Measures of Affect scale was
displayed. When the questionnaire was completed, participants
could click on an icon labelled "send" or "reset". By choosing
"send" the survey was submitted and choosing "reset" allowed
participants to withdraw or return to the questionnaire to change
their responses.
Finally, a hypertext link was displayed for debriefing
information, and once this link was accessed, the debriefing was
displayed. The debriefing (Appendix D) included a reference list
for further reading on procrastination and suggestions for
self-help books were supplied.
15
Results
Sample
Sixty surveys were received, however, six were discarded
because of incomplete or inaccurate information. Two surveys were
left incomplete and one survey did not specify the sex of the
respondent and these were subsequently deleted. Three other
surveys were discarded because of inconsistencies in the amount of
time spent on the Internet. One of these reported spending 24
hours a day on the Internet and two reported spending zero hours
per day on the Internet. Therefore 54 surveys remained, 32 female
respondents and 22 male.
The average age was 34.66 (SD 12.16). The youngest age
represented was 16 and the oldest 58. Although the sample size in
this study was small, and therefore biased, the mean age was
consistent with other studies examining Internet and computer use.
For example, the age range in Shotton's (1989) study was 14-64,
mean age 29.7. Young's (1998) participants mean age was 31.5,
while Computing Canada (Solomon, 1998) reports the average age of
Internet users as 31. Brenner (1997), Shaffer (1996) and
16
Griffiths (1997) research did not report the age of their
participants.
Participants reported five countries of citizenship and seven
countries of residence. The majority were US citizens (26);
Canadian citizens were the second most frequent respondents (23);
two participants were Australian citizens, one Mexican citizen,
one New Zealand citizen, and one survey left the citizenship
question unanswered. The countries represented were, Canada, USA,
Australia, Germany, Bermuda, Italy and one survey from New Zealand
which was one of the surveys finally deleted. Although
participants were asked to give the region they lived in, if they
were responding from Canada or the US, these data
were not analysed because the sample was small and not enough
variability could be provided. The participants occupations were
differentiated only as either "student" (N=21) or "non-student"
(N=33). Students mean age was 24.1 (SD 6.11), with one case
missing, and the non-student group mean age was 41.06 (SD 10.32).
Feelings and Use of the Internet
Responses to questions one to six in Section 1 covered the
whole range of possible responses, that is "False of me" to "True
of me", except for two statements (Table 1). Not one participant
17
Table 1
Feelings and Use of the Internet
Q 1
I think the Internet is Frequency Percent
an important tool. S Non-S S Non-S
False of me 1 1 4.8 3.0
Sometimes true\false of me 4 2 19.0 6.1
True of me 16 30 76.2 90.9
Q 2
I think the Internet is Frequency Percent
very entertaining S Non-S S Non-S
False of me 2 2 9.6 6.0
Sometimes true\false of me 3 8 14.3 24.2
True of me 16 23 76.2 69.7
Q 3
I feel the Internet makes me Frequency Percent
more productive S Non-S S Non-S
False of me 6 3 28.6 9.1
Sometimes true\false of me 10 14 47.6 42.4
True of me 5 16 23.8 48.5
18
Table 1 cont.
Q 4
When I am on line,
I end up spending more time Frequency Percent
than I anticipated S Non-S S Non-S
False of me 2 5 9.5 15.2
Sometimes true\false of me 2 15 9.5 45.5
True of me 17 13 81.0 39.4
Q 5
I often use the Internet Frequency Percent
to relieve stress S Non-S S Non-S
False of me 10 10 47.6 30.3
Sometimes true\false of me 3 8 14.3 24.2
True of me 8 15 38.1 45.4
Q6
I often use the Internet Frequency Percent
to procrastinate S Non-S S Non-S
False of me 5 8 23.8 24.3
Sometimes true\false of me 3 8 14.3 24.2
True of me 13 17 61.9 51.5
Note: S = Student Non-S = Non-student
19
responded "False of me" to the statement "I think the Internet is
an important tool" and "When I am on line, I end up spending more
time than anticipated". Table 1 represents frequencies and
percentage of responses for students and non-students, collapsed
across groups. As can be seen in Table 1, most of the
participants consider the Internet to be an important tool, very
entertaining, spend more time on-line than anticipated, and often
use the Internet to procrastinate. A small majority of
non-students reported using the Internet to relieve stress,
however, the majority of students reported they did not use the
Internet to relieve stress. Overall, responses to participants
feelings about the Internet making them more productive, was
largely in the "sometimes true/false of me" category. However,
when the sample was divided into the two groups, it became
apparent that a small majority of non-students believed the
Internet made them more productive and reported "true of me."
Questions 7 and 8 in Section 2 asked participants how much
time they spent on the Internet at home, work and school, and how
much of that time they believed to be procrastinatory. The total
mean time on the Internet at home work and school was 3.35 hours
(SD 3.1). The modal time spent on the Internet was two hours,
20
with a maximum of 17 hours. Table 2 displays the mean time spent
on the Internet and the time spent procrastinating on the Internet
in each domain of home, work and school. Table 2 also presents
the proportion of time on the Internet that the
participants believed to be procrastinatory. The total mean time
spent procrastinating on the Internet at home, work and school
each day was 1.55 hours (SD 1.66). The modal time spent
procrastinating on the Internet was 1 hour, with a maximum of 10
hours. The Internet procrastination survey (IPS) requested time
spent on line in hours per day, whereas other studies collected
this information in hours per week or month. Table 3 presents
mean hours per day spent on the Internet for each survey where
these data were available. Participants in each survey spent
similar amounts of time on the Internet, with the exception of
Young (1998) and Shotton's (1991) "dependents", suggesting the
current survey is consistent with past research.
Recurring themes were noted amongst the participants for both
questions 9 & 10, "Why do you use the Internet?" and "How do you
think about the time you spend on the Internet?" Each set of
responses could be broken down into approximately 15
sub-categories with one or two responses being the most prevalent.
21
Table 2
Time spent on the Internet
Proportion Range
Mean of time in
(N=54) (SD) Procrastinating hours
Home
Time spent on
the Internet 1.69 (1.95) 0-10
Time spent
Procrastinating
on the Internet .97 (1.56) .57 0-10
Work
Time spent on
the Internet 1.21 (2.46) 0-12
Time spent
Procrastinating
on the Internet .32 (.68) .26 0-4
School
Time spent on
the Internet .45 (1.34) 0-8
Time spent
Procrastinating
on the Internet .26 (.88) .57 0-4.5
22
Table 3
Comparative Time Spent on the Internet Between Studies
Study Hrs/day
IPS (work & home) 2.90
IPS (school & home) 2.14
Solomon 1.43
Brenner 2.71
Young (non-Dependents) .70
Shotton (Owners) 3.00
Young (Dependents) 5.50
Shotton (Dependants) 7.51
23
For instance, the responses to "Why do you use the Internet?"
were mostly research/information and work/homework related, with
76% of the students and 88% of non-students reporting these
activities as at least one of their reasons for using the
Internet. In addition, 43% of all participants reported one of
the purposes of their Internet use to be either email, personal
communication or Multi-User Dungeons (MUDS). Responses to "How do
you think about the time you spend on the Internet?" were not
quantified but were found to be equally divided between
"wasted/unproductive" and "worthwhile/productive." Other
responses to this question were quite scattered however, and were
equally divided between positive and negative answers. For
example, "harmless hobby," "relaxing," "healthy fun," and
"guilty," "poorly," and "trying to reduce use."
Question 11, "Do you think you are procrastinating now?"
received responses from "no" to "perhaps" to "yes," including
"yes" with added emphasis (e.g. hell yes and absolutely). The
majority responded "yes" (68.6%), while 24.1% said "no" and 7.4%
said "perhaps".
Feelings and Use of the Internet and Positive and Negative Affect
Correlations were calculated between all of the questions in
24
Section 1 (e.g., "I think the Internet is an important tool" with
"I think the Internet is very entertaining") for the two groups
"student" and "non-student," and a number of significant
correlations were found. "I think the Internet is an important
tool" had a positive correlation with "I feel the Internet makes
me more productive" for both students and non-students (r=.58,
p<.01, and r=.44, p<.01, respectively). However, only the non-
students had a significant correlation between "I think the
Internet is an important tool" and "I think the Internet is very
entertaining" (r=.46, p<.01), and "I often use the Internet to
relieve stress" (r=.35, p<.05). Significant positive correlations
were found between "I think the Internet is very entertaining" and
"I often use the Internet to procrastinate" for both groups
(r=.46, p.<05 for students, and r=.36, p<.05 for non- students).
Only the student group had significant positive correlations
between "I think the Internet is very entertaining" and "I often
use the Internet to relieve stress" (r=.56, p<.01). The
non-student group alone had a significant positive correlation
between "I think the Internet is very entertaining" and "I think
the Internet makes me more productive" (r=.50, p<.01). Students
had a significant negative correlation between
25
"I feel the Internet makes me more productive" and "I often use
the Internet to procrastinate" (r=-.59, p<.01). A significant
correlation was found between "When I am on line, I end up
spending more time than I anticipated" and "I often use the
Internet to relieve stress" for non-students only (r=.44, p<.01).
Finally, "I often use the Internet to relieve stress" correlated
with "I often use the Internet to procrastinate" for both
students and non-students (r=.71, p.<001, and r=.78, p<.001,
respectively).
A correlation coefficient was calculated between mean
positive affect and questions one to six (e.g., I think the
Internet is an important tool), and overall mean negative affect
and questions one to six. It was found that mean positive affect
correlated significantly with the first three statements (i.e.,
Important tool r=.44, p<.001; Entertaining r=.37, p<.01; and
Productive r=.46, p<.001. Mean negative affect correlated with
the last three statements (i.e., More time than anticipated r=.31,
p<.05; Relieve stress r=.30, p<.05; and I often use the Internet
to procrastinate r=.35, p<.01).
Table 4 presents correlation coefficients for negative affect
and participants' feelings about their use of the
26
Table 4
Correlations Between Negative Affect and Internet Use
Variable Group Frustrated Worry Angry Depressed Guilt Unhappy
Important Both -.50*** -.33*
Tool
Student -.59** -.45*
N-student -.40*
Enter- Both -.37**
tainment
Student -.50*
N-student -.44**
Produc- Both -.30**
tive
Student -.47*
N-student
More than Both .28* .30** .30**
anticip-
ated Student .47* .49* .45*
N-student
Relieve Both .38** .50***
Stress
Student
N-student .42** .55** .35**
Procrast- Both .29** .35** .51***
inate
Student
N-student .38* .50**
Note: N-student = Non-student *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
27
Internet. These correlations are presented for each group,
student and non-student, as well as collapsed across all
categories. The data suggest that those participants, who believe
the Internet is an important tool, entertaining, and made them
more productive, were experiencing less frustration (r=-.51,
p<.001; r=-37, p<.01; and r=-.30, p<.05 respectively). Those in
the group as a whole, who were attempting to relieve stress and
procrastinating on the Internet, appeared to be experiencing
greater feelings of worry, depression and guilt (r=38, p<.01 and
r=.50, p<.001). Those procrastinating on the Internet were
apparently experiencing greater feelings of worry (r=.29, p<.01),
depression (r=.35, p<.01) and guilt (r=.51, p<.001). However,
when the group was divided into the sub-categories, only
non-students appeared to be experiencing these feelings of
negative affect. Those in the whole sample who were spending more
time than anticipated on-line not only appeared to be encountering
feelings of worry (r=.30, p<.01) and guilt (r=.30, p<.01), but
increased levels of frustration (r=.28, p<.05). Finally, only the
student group was affected by negative affect when reporting they
spent more time than anticipated on-line (Frustrated r=.47, p<.05;
Worry r=.49, p<.05; and Guilt (r=.45, p<.01)).
28
Table 5 displays the correlation coefficients for positive
affect and respondents feelings about their use of the Internet.
Those participants who felt the Internet was an important tool,
and felt it increased their productivity, appeared to be
experiencing significant levels of positive affect in all of the
positive affect categories presented. However, it became apparent
that the students were experiencing greater positive affect for
the "Important tool" category (Motivated r=.55, p<.01; Happy
r=.60, p<.05; Joyful r=.46, p<.05; Pleased r=.56, p<.01).
Participants who found the Internet entertaining were also
experiencing significant levels of enjoyment (r=.38, p<.01),
happiness (r=.53, p<.001) and were feeling pleased (r=.44,
p<.001). Both students and non-students were feeling happy and
pleased while non-students only were feeling enjoyment. In the
"productive" section, both students and non-students were feeling
pleased but were not experiencing the same types of positive
affect. The students were experiencing higher levels of
motivation (r=.60, p<.01) and joyfulness (r=.66, p<.001), while
non-students were experiencing greater enjoyment (r=.40, p<.05)
and happiness (r=.42, p<.05). The two statements "I end up
spending more time on the Internet than I anticipated," and "I
29
Table 5
Correlations Between Positive Affect and Internet Use
Variable Group Enjoyment Motivated Happy Joyful Pleased
Important Both .31** .36** .46*** .27* .40**
Tool
Student .55** .60* .46* .56**
N-student
Entertain- Both .38** .53*** .44***
ment
Student .65*** .46*
N-student .49** .44** .43**
Productive Both .33** .36** .28* .45*** .44***
Student .60** .66*** .46*
N-student .40* .42* .50**
More than Both
antici-
pated Student
N-student
Relieve Both
Stress
Student
N-student
Procrast- Both -.28* -.27*
inate
Student -.52*
N-student -.38
Note: N-sudent = Non-student *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
30
often use the Internet to relieve stress" had no significant
correlations with any of the positive affect categories. Finally,
significant negative correlations for motivation (r=- .28, p<.05)
and joyfulness (r=-.27, p<.05) were related to using the Internet
to procrastinate.
Correlation coefficients were also calculated between overall
positive affect and general procrastination, and overall negative
affect and general procrastination. The GP total and negative
affect had a positive correlation (r=.43, p<.001), and the GP
total and positive affect had a negative correlation
(r=-.29, p<.05). Guilt and motivation were correlated as
individual items with the procrastination measure. Guilt was
found to correlate positively with procrastination (r=.48, p<.01)
and motivation correlated negatively with procrastination (r=-
.41, p<.01).
Correlation coefficients between general procrastination and
all of the negative affect categories, and general procrastination
and the positive affect categories for the two groups "student"
and "non-student" were calculated. Those who were classified as
non-student had significant positive correlations with general
procrastination and all of the negative
31
affect categories: frustrated (r=.46, p<.01), worried (r=.48,
p<.01), angry (r=.44, p<.01), unhappy (r=.62, p<.001), depressed
(r=.50, p<.01), guilt (r=.68, p<.001). In addition, significant
negative correlations for the non-students were found between
general procrastination and motivation (r=-.58, p<.001) and
general procrastination and happiness (r=-.58, p<.01). The
students did not have significant correlations with either
positive or negative affect categories and general
procrastination.
32
Discussion In preface to the discussion of the results, it is
important to present some caveats related to the data. There are
some inherent problems with Internet research. First, as Smith
and Leigh (1997) point out, there is no guarantee that results
from Internet surveys are valid or generalizeable because
participants may have a vested interest in participating in
research. For example, in the current survey, five respondents
clearly stated they were looking for help with their own
procrastination problem. As Internet research participants are
self-selected, this may yield a biased sample, however, it is
expected participants are more likely to maintain their interest
in the research until completion (Hewson, Laurent, & Vogel, 1996).
Secondly, a large portion of the population, those who are unable
to access the new technology, were not studied. Not only are the
few who can afford to be a part of the new technology taking part
in Internet surveys, but they may be further identified as elite
members of a computer-literate public (Smith and Leigh, 1997).
Finally, maintaining the integrity of
responses may be a problem. In this survey the anonymity of
respondents was jeopardized because email addresses were attached
33
to the survey responses. However, this also guarded against
multiple responses from the same participant. It may be possible
to avoid this problem by issuing a password to each participant
before they are allowed to continue with the survey, thereby,
protecting their anonymity and also preventing multiple replies
(Smith and Leigh, 1997).
There are, however, a number of advantages for Internet
research. One such benefit is that Internet surveys are believed
to be resistant to experimenter effects and bias (Hewson et al.,
1996). Secondly, using the Internet to do research increases the
number of possible participants. Universities that have
traditionally relied on students for their subject pool can now
reach outside the campus boundaries, this is especially helpful to
smaller universities which have a limited number of students
(Smith & Leigh, 1997). Finally, possibilities for cross cultural
studies are greatly enhanced and are more viable with Internet
research, for example, the current survey attracted participants
from seven countries. Despite the inherent limitations of
Internet research, the data from this study are worthwhile
because a study of this nature has not been undertaken before and
it may be the launching point for the development of more tightly
34
controlled Internet procrastination surveys and add to our
understanding of how future Internet procrastination research
could be designed and conducted.
It will be remembered that the hypotheses driving this
research was that those participants who believed that they were
procrastinating on-line would experience more negative affect and
those who felt the Internet is an important tool, their time spent
on-line was productive, and entertaining, would feel more positive
affect. The statistical analysis did in fact support this
hypothesis for the sample as a whole (see Tables 4 & 5). As the
participants belief that the Internet was an important tool
increased, it made them more productive, and it was more
entertaining, their frustration levels decreased, and enjoyment,
happiness, and feeling pleased increased. Also, as
procrastination on-line increased, the participants' experience of
negative affect increased, most notably guilt, but also depression
and to a lesser extent worry.
Perhaps one of the more interesting findings of this survey
was that participants classified as students had no significant
correlations between any of the negative affect categories and
using the Internet to procrastinate (see Table 4 & 5). However,
35
the participants classified as non-student had a significant
negative correlation between Internet procrastination and
motivation and significant positive correlations between worried
and guilty and Internet procrastination. It is possible that the
age difference between the two groups affected this outcome, the
mean age for students was 24.1 years and for non-students was
41.06 years. This group was on average older, mostly in the work
force, and possibly had more responsibilities. Perhaps the
non-student groups' guilt and negative affect was being fuelled by
other obligations. Given the advent of downsizing and the
competitive nature of the current work force, if people are
procrastinating at work on the Internet worry and guilt would
appear to be an understandable outcome.
If the Internet is the water cooler of the nineties, as
proposed in the introduction, should Human Resource managers be
concerned? Or, can the water cooler effect be beneficial to
business? The participants in this study believed they
procrastinated on-line at work an average of .32 hours per day.
Using Sunoo's (1996) criteria (i.e., 1000 employees x .32 x
$20/hr) this would cost the company $6400.00 per day, a
considerable amount of money. However, only 33.3 % of the
36
participants in this research reported procrastinating on-line at
all during working hours. Therefore, even if they all worked for
the same company, the cost to the business would be $2112.00 per
day (i.e., 33% of 1000 employees = 330 x .32 x $20/hr). One would
expect not only gossip at the water cooler, but an exchange of
ideas and information, and for a large or small company this may
just be the cost of doing business and maintaining a well informed
staff.
Given Ferrari's (1991b) belief that procrastinators prefer to
avoid evaluation and choose conditions where their public image
will not be damaged, and pairing that with Siegel et al. (1986)
contention that CMI reduces embarrassment and produces fewer
social comparisons, one might surmise that higher procrastinators
are drawn to the anonymity of the Internet. However, it is
unclear whether those who are procrastinating on the Internet have
found it to be just one more way to procrastinate, or if the
Internet is encouraging procrastination. Causality will be
difficult to establish, and the question remains, are high
procrastinators drawn to the Internet, or is
the Internet a breeding ground for procrastinators?
According to Shaffer (1996) "Using a computer, like
37
narcotics, often accelerates the subjective passage of time" (p.
468). In response to the statement, "I often spend more time than
anticipated on the Internet" not one participant answered "false
of me," and a large percentage (81.5%) of participants
reported they often spend more time than anticipated while on the
Internet. On the surface this may appear to be a function of
addiction, however, the question remains, what is keeping
participants on-line longer than they anticipated? There could be
a number of reasons, and participants statements gave some hint as
to the causes. For example, participants made such comments as
[the Internet is] "frustratingly slow," "links are ambiguous," and
"I am often led astray by detours." Down-loading information from
the Internet can also be time consuming and that may be
contributing to the amount of time spent on-line as well as
increasing frustration levels, as at least one participant clearly
articulated. Participants also expressed more positive
experiences on-line which might also explain lengthy log-on times.
For instance, some users are finding so much interesting
information that they perceive their time on-line as well spent.
For example, some comments made by respondents were: "There are
always interesting links to follow," and "Subjects which I might
38
not intensely research otherwise I explore ad infinitum," and
simply, "I love it, I can't get enough of it." Although Internet
users may be spending more time than they had planned, and it may
be due to an accelerated passage of time, further inquiry is
needed to clarify more precisely why people are spending so much
time on-line.
Some research supports that television watching has been used
to reduce stress and to relax (Griffiths, 1995) and the Internet
may "privatize entertainment," like the television (Kraut et al.,
1998). Relaxing and reducing stress were reasons cited by
participants in the current survey as reasons for using the
Internet, much like television. However, using the Internet to
relieve stress appears to be increasing levels of depression,
unhappiness and guilt in the non-student group and positive affect
is not being increased. Therefore, one might expect that
procrastination on-line, at home especially, was diverting them
from other more important tasks, perhaps child-rearing and family
obligations, thus adding to their levels of negative affect.
It is important to note that five people expressly stated
they were looking for help with their procrastination and it is
expected that many of the other participants came to this web
39
page and survey for the same reason. Coupled with this, the
demand for information about procrastination, as evidenced by
articles in the popular press and professional journals, suggests
there is a demand for an effective treatment plan. Given this
need, is the Internet an appropriate forum for treatment? The
idea of treatment delivery for various psychological problems via
the Internet has been proposed by Young (1998), Huang and Alessi
(1997), and others. They also express the belief that with the
phenomenal expansion of the Internet we can expect the possibility
of entirely new disorders and new methods of treatment delivery.
However, treating Internet "addiction" with the very tool that is
the addictive "substance" would appear to be contraindicated. By
the same token, if Internet overuse can be linked to
procrastination, then the "cure" for the sufferer could be as
dangerous as the "disease." Future research will need to focus on
the matter of causality before an informed decision can be made
about the appropriateness of on-line treatment for Internet
procrastination.
40
References
Brenner, Viktor (1997). Psychology of computer use: XLVII.
Parameters of Internet use, abuse and addiction: The first 90
days of the Internet usage survey. Psychological Reports, 80,
879-882.
Diener, Ed, & Larsen, Randy J. (1984). Temporal stability
and cross-situational consistency of affective, behavioral, and
cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47 (4), 871-883.
Diener, Ed, Larsen, Randy J., & Emmons, Robert A. (1984)
Person x situation interactions: Choice of situations and
congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47 (3), 580-592.
Emmons, Robert A., & Diener, Ed (1985). Personality
correlates of subjective well-being. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 11 (1), 89-97.
Ferrari, Joseph, R. (1991a). Compulsive procrastination:
Some self-reported characteristics. Psychological Reports, 68,
455-458.
Ferrari, Joseph, R. (1991b). Procrastination and project
41
creation: Choosing easy, non diagnostic items to avoid self-
relevant information. Journal of Social Behavior, 6 (3), 619-
628.
Ferrari, Joseph, R. (1992). Psychometric validation of two
procrastination inventories for adults: Arousal and avoidance
measures. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,
14 (2), 97-110.
Ferrari, Joseph, R., Johnson, Judith L., McCown, William G.
(1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research,
and treatment. Plenum Press, New York and London.
Griffiths, Mark (1995). Technological addictions. Clinical
Psychology Forum, 17, 14-19.
Griffiths, Mark (1996). Internet "addiction": an issue for
clinical psychology? Clinical Psychology Forum, 97, 32-36.
Griffiths, Mark (1997). Psychology of computer use: XLIII.
Some comments on 'addictive use of the Internet' by Young.
Psychological Reports, 80, 81-82.
Hewson, Claire M., Laurent, Dianna, & Vogel, Carl M. (1996).
Proper Methodologies for psychological and sociological studies
conducted via the Internet. Behaviour Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 28, 186-191.
42
Huang, Milton P., Alessi, Norman E. (1997). Drs. Huang and
Alessi reply. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153 (6), 890.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S.,
Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis W. (1998). Internet paradox.
American Psychologist, 53 (9), 1017-1031.
Lay, Clarry H. (1986). At last, my research article on
procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474-
495.
Moulton, Donalee (1998). Internet overuse mimics addictions.
The Journal: Addictions News for Professionals, (ARF) 27 (1), 4.
Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J.M., Thibodeau, R., Blunt, A. (1998).
Five days of emotion: An experience sampling study of
undergraduate students. In Press Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality.
Pychyl, T. A., & Little, B. R. (1998). Dimensional
specificity in the prediction of subjective well-being: Personal
projects in pursuit of the Ph.D. Social Indicators Research, 45.
Scheuermann, Lawrence E., & Langford, Harold (1997).
Perceptions of Internet abuse, liability, and fair use.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 847-850.
43
Shaffer, Howard J. (1996). Understanding the means and
objects of addiction: Technology, the Internet, and gambling.
Journal of Gambling Studies, 12 (4), 461-469.
Shotton, Margaret A. (1991). The costs and benefits of
'computer addiction.' Behaviour and Information Technology, 10
(3), 219-230.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T.W.
(1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication.
Organization Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
Silver, Maury, & Sabini, John (1981). Procrastinating.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 11, 207-221.
Smith, Michael A., & Leigh, Brant (1997). Virtual subjects:
Using the Internet as an alternative source of subjects and
research environment. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 29, 496-505.
Solomon, Howard (1998). Facts, figures abound in new
Internet study. Computing Canada, 24 (9), 13.
Sunoo, Brenda Paik (1996). This employee may be loafing can
you tell? Should you care? Personnel Journal, 75, (12), 54-62.
Survey reveals 30 million machines on Internet. (1998).
Computing Canada, 24 (6), 35.
44
Walther, Joseph B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in
computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective.
Communication Research, 19 (1), 52-90.
Young, Kimberly S. (1996). Psychology of computer use:
XL.Addictive use of the Internet: A case that breaks the
stereotype. Psychological Reports, 79, 899-902.
Young, Kimberly S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence
of a new clinical disorder. In The Centre for On-Line Addiction
[On-line], Available: http://www.netaddiction.com.
45