![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
This commentary connects two studies of academic procrastination, Beswick, Rothblum and Mann (1988), which studied the antecedents of academic procrastination, and Steel (2016), which focuses on the personality correlates of academic procrastination. The author identifies reasons for growth in the field of procrastination research, discusses definitions of procrastination, and then comments on the two studies of academic procrastination identified above. In assessing current status and future directions in the field of procrastination research, the author discusses the relationship between and measurement of behavioural and decisional procrastination, the domain specificity or domain generality of procrastination, and the need for the field to move beyond studies of academic procrastination into other domains such as illness and health where procrastination is a major problem, then ends with a comment on cross‐cultural differences in procrastination and a summary conclusion about the field.