It’s too difficult! Frustration intolerance beliefs and procrastination

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 873–883

It�s too difficult! Frustration intolerance beliefsand procrastination

Neil Harrington *

Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Edinburgh and Stratheden Hospital, Cupar, Fife KY15 5RR, UK

Received 14 April 2004; received in revised form 1 December 2004; accepted 3 December 2004

Available online 31 May 2005

Abstract

Beliefs regarding intolerance of frustration are central to the theory of Rational Emotive Behaviour

Therapy (REBT) and are hypothesised as playing an important role in procrastination. However, there

is evidence that frustration intolerance may involve several dimensions. To investigate the relative contri-bution of these dimensions, a multidimensional measure of frustration intolerance beliefs was employed in

a student sample (n = 86). The Frustration-Discomfort Scale included four sub-scales: discomfort intoler-

ance, emotional intolerance, achievement frustration, and entitlement. Since REBT distinguishes frustra-

tion intolerance beliefs from those relating to self-worth, this was separately assessed using the

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Results indicated that self-esteem, the discomfort intolerance and emotional

intolerance sub-scales were correlated with the severity of procrastination. However, only discomfort intol-

erance and self-esteem remained unique predictors in a regression analysis. The emotional intolerance and

achievement frustration sub-scales were correlated with lower procrastination frequency. The research sup-ported the validity of the Frustration-Discomfort Scale and the usefulness of distinguishing self-esteem

from frustration intolerance as well as between the dimensions of frustration intolerance.

� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Procrastination; Frustration intolerance; Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy; Self-esteem; Dysfunctional

beliefs

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.12.018

* Fax: +44 1334 655380.

E-mail address: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

874 N. Harrington / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 873–883

1. Introduction

Cognitive theories derived from Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) have beenprominent as explanations of procrastination (Ellis & Knaus, 1977). REBT proposes that dys-functional (�irrational�) beliefs are central to emotional and behavioural problems. It also suggeststhat these beliefs may be grouped within two separate categories (Ellis & Dryden, 1987). The firstcategory involves intolerance of frustration and represents the demand that reality should be aswe wish it to be (e.g., ‘‘Life must be easy and free of hassle’’). The second category representsthe evaluation of self-worth based on meeting certain absolute conditions (e.g., ‘‘I must succeedto be worthwhile’’). Whilst these two belief categories interact, they are assumed to have distinctand unique relationships with psychological problems (Ellis, 1979).Theoretically, REBT suggests that both belief categories play a role in procrastination,

although Ellis and Knaus (1977) suggest that frustration intolerance �constitutes the main andthe most direct cause of procrastination� (p. 19). However, empirical evidence regarding the rela-tionship between frustration intolerance beliefs and procrastination, and the relative importanceof frustration intolerance and self-worth, is limited. One reason has been the lack of adequatemeasures of �irrational� beliefs, with earlier scales based on outdated theory and the sub-scale con-tent failing to reflect a clear theoretical framework. This may explain why several studies havefound little overall relationship between �irrational� beliefs and measures of procrastination (Bes-wick, Rothblum, & Mann, 1988; Ferrari & Emmons, 1994). A more robust association has beenfound with the measures of self-worth, although Beswick et al. (1988) note that the amount ofvariance accounted for by low self-esteem was modest, suggesting that other factors wereinvolved.The investigation of specific beliefs has also been restricted by frustration intolerance being

treated as a unidimensional construct, with the content of frustration intolerance beliefs and theirfactor structure remaining unexplored (Neenan & Dryden, 1999). Nevertheless, several differentareas of belief are described in the REBT literature as characteristic of frustration intolerance,including intolerance of emotional distress, the intolerance of frustrated goals and hassles, anddemands for fairness and immediate gratification (Dryden & Gordon, 1993). These beliefs arelikely to show quite distinct relationships with specific problems, and will therefore be inade-quately assessed by a unidimensional scale.To redress this problem, the Frustration-Discomfort Scale (FDS) was developed as a multi-

dimensional measure of frustration intolerance beliefs, as distinct from self-worth beliefs (Har-rington, 2003). Initial analysis of the FDS yielded a factor structure involving four dimensions.These dimensions were emotional intolerance (e.g., ‘‘I can�t stand situations where I might feelupset’’), discomfort intolerance (e.g., ‘‘I can�t stand doing tasks when I�m not in the mood’’), enti-tlement (e.g., ‘‘I can�t stand having to give into other people�s demands’’) and achievement frus-tration (e.g., ‘‘I can�t stand doing a job if I�m unable to do it well’’). It was hypothesised that thesedimensions would have distinct relationships with procrastination. However, evidence from theresearch literature involving similar concepts has been inconsistent. Regarding emotional intoler-ance, it has been argued that procrastination is related to attempts to gain immediate relief fromnegative affect by indulging in enjoyable distractions (Tice, Bratslavsky, & Baumeister, 2001), withanxiety suggested as a core emotion (McCown & Johnson, 1991). However, other studies reportno such relationship between negative affect and procrastination (Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, &

N. Harrington / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 873–883 875

Blunt, 2000), or suggest that this may only be relevant to a small sub-set of procrastinators withfear of failure (Schouwenburg, 1992). As regards discomfort intolerance, evidence does suggestthat individuals are more likely to procrastinate on tasks perceived as boring, difficult, or demand-ing of greater effort (Milgram, Srolof, & Rosenbaum, 1988).Ellis and Knaus (1977) have also proposed that oppositional behaviour and resentment play a

role in procrastination, which suggests an association with entitlement beliefs. Supporting this,procrastination has been reported as having a significant although low correlation with anger, re-venge, and just world beliefs (Ferrari & Emmons, 1994; Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995).Beliefs regarding perfectionistic achievement have also been linked to procrastination, although

the evidence suggests a complex relationship involving different types of perfectionism (Flett, He-witt, & Martin, 1995). In general, perfectionistic beliefs that primarily reflect an evaluation of self-worth are significantly correlated with procrastination. In contrast, perfectionistic beliefs that justrefer to high standards are not associated with increased procrastination. Therefore, it has beensuggested that high-standards by themselves may reflect adaptive striving for personal goals,and it is the association of high standards with negative self-evaluation that is dysfunctional(Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993). However, unlike the present achievementfrustration sub-scale, existing perfectionism measures do not specifically assess intolerance of frus-trated standards or goals. Therefore, it remains unclear whether achievement frustration, indepen-dent of self-worth beliefs, will be related to procrastination.The present paper reports on the validation of the FDS by examining the relationship be-

tween these dimensions of frustration intolerance and academic procrastination. As a measureof procrastination, the Procrastination Assessment Scale for Students (PASS) (Solomon &Rothblum, 1984) was chosen because the �reasons for procrastination� sub-section containedtwo factors: fear of failure and task aversiveness. Since these two factors are conceptually simi-lar to self-worth and frustration intolerance, it was hypothesised that they would be differen-tially related. More specifically, that fear of failure would be related to self-esteem and taskaversiveness to the discomfort intolerance sub-scale. However, because the reported factorstructure of the PASS indicated possible methodological flaws, this measure was subjected toa preliminary analysis.An additional consideration was the expected interrelationship between frustration intolerance

and self-worth beliefs. For this reason, it was necessary to demonstrate that any relationship be-tween the FDS and procrastination was not simply a reflection of shared variance. This was ad-dressed by controlling for self-worth beliefs in a regression strategy. Since the FDS was designedas a measure of frustration intolerance, and therefore did not include items related to self-worth,the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was used as a measure of dysfunctional self-worth.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedure

Participants comprised undergraduate psychology students from two consecutive third yearhonours courses in abnormal psychology (22% male and 78% female). Two cases were eliminated


due to missing data leaving 86 replies for analysis. Questionnaires were completed by students atthe beginning of a workshop conducted by the author.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Frustration-Discomfort Scale (FDS)The development of the FDS involved two studies both employing combined student and clin-

ical populations (Harrington, 2003). Part of this student sample was used in the present paper. Inthe first study, a preliminary scale was constructed from a pool of beliefs covering the importanttheoretical domains described in the REBT literature (e.g., Neenan & Dryden, 1999). WithinREBT theory, a defining characteristic of dysfunctional beliefs is that they represent absolutisticdemands (‘‘I must be free of hassles—I can�t stand them’’) as opposed to preferences (‘‘I don�t likehassles—but I can tolerate them’’). Thus, the desire to avoid unnecessary discomfort is not con-sidered dysfunctional, but rather the absolute intolerance of this discomfort. Items were wordedto reflect this distinction. Following a series of reliability and frequency analyses a principal com-ponents analysis was conducted, yielding four factors. In the second study, the scale was revisedby simplifying the statement wording whilst retaining the same item content. A confirmatory fac-tor analysis of the revised scale supporting the initial four-factor solution. The revised scale, usedin the present paper, consisted of 28 items with four sub-scales each containing seven items. Theconfirmatory factor analysis also suggested that one of these factors, entitlement, included twostrongly intercorrelated facets. These facets reflected beliefs regarding fairness and immediategratification, represented by three and five items, respectively.Participants were asked to rate the strength to which they held certain beliefs on a 5-point

Likert-type scale with the following anchors: (1) absent, (2) mild, (3) moderate, (4) strong and(5) very strong. The emotional intolerance sub-scale reflected the belief that emotional distress isintolerable and must be quickly relieved or avoided (e.g., ‘‘I can�t bear disturbing feelings’’). Theentitlement sub-scale reflected the belief that desires must be meet and that other people should in-dulge and not frustrate these desires, including demands for fairness (e.g., ‘‘I can�t tolerate beingtaken for granted’’) and immediate gratification (e.g., ‘‘I can�t stand having to wait for things Iwould like now’’). The discomfort intolerance scale reflected the belief that life should be easy, com-fortable, and free of hassles, effort, and inconvenience (e.g., ‘‘I can�t stand having to persist atunpleasant tasks’’). Finally, the achievement sub-scale aimed to assess the intolerance of achieve-ment goals being frustrated (e.g., ‘‘I can�t bear to move on from work I�m not fully satisfied with’’).Initial analysis has yielded good evidence supporting the psychometric properties of the revised

FDS (Harrington, 2003). Coefficient alphas were: .87 (emotional intolerance), .88 (discomfort),.85 (entitlement), .84 (achievement) and .94 (full scale). The FDS sub-scales significantly distin-guished between clinical and non-clinical groups. Consistent with results from the preliminaryscale, the revised sub-scales showed unique relationships with specific psychological problemsand evidence of convergent and divergent validity (Harrington, 2005).

2.2.2. The Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students (PASS)

The PASS (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) is the most commonly used measure of academic pro-crastination, and employs a five-point Likert scale. There are two sections: the first section as-sesses procrastination frequency and problem severity across six areas. However, normative


data indicates the first three areas, referring to procrastination on essays, exams, and readingassignments, are the most relevant and only the summed scores from these were included in thepresent study.In the second section, students are asked to rate �reasons for procrastinating� on an essay assign-

ment, with 26 items covering 13 types of motivation. Unfortunately, there are a number of meth-odological weaknesses in the original study regarding this sub-scale. Firstly, in a multidimensionalscale the number of factors to be retained is crucial in determining the final factor structure. Sol-omon and Rothblum�s (1984) study relied on an eigenvalue greater than one criterion. However,this has been found to be over inclusive and to increase the number of irrelevant factors (Comrey,1978). This over inclusion is reflected in that, of the seven factors extracted, just two factors ac-counted for most of the variance: �fear of failure� (49%) and �task aversiveness� (18%). Secondly,many items show low endorsement, with 12 items having less than 10% of replies in the two high-est scoring categories. Such skewed frequency distributions are likely to further distort the factorstructure (Comrey, 1978).To clarify the factor structure of the PASS, a preliminary analysis was conducted. The partic-

ipants for this included three further undergraduate classes, which were added to the two classesused in the present study, forming a total population of 172 students (26% male and 74% female).Similar to Solomon and Rothblum�s (1984) study, frequency analysis revealed nine items with lessthan 10% of responses in the two highest scale points. In addition, all but one of these itemsshowed low corrected inter-item correlations (<.30), indicating poor internal consistency. There-fore, these items were eliminated and the remaining 17 items subjected to a principal componentanalysis using varimax rotation. Whilst four factors had eigenvalues above one, there was a sub-stantial drop after the second factor and the final factor was only just above this criterion. Thepercentage variance explained and the eigenvalues for each factor were: 26.83% (4.56), 16.19%(2.75), 10.34% (1.76) and 6.18% (1.05).These results, and the evidence of a scree plot, suggested that three factors were the most appro-

priate number. The first two factors consisted of five items each. All these items had very goodloadings (>.60) and good definition, with items loading only on the respective factor. The fiveitems on factor I matched the items on Solomon and Rothblum (1984) �fear of failure� factor,and these primarily reflected the evaluation of performance (items: 1,6, 15, 21 and 24). The topthree items on factor II matched the items on Rothblum and Solomon�s �task aversiveness� factor,but all five items referred to task discomfort (items: 9, 16, 17, 25 and 26). There was no significantcorrelation between the two sub-scales (r(172) = .11) suggesting orthogonal dimensions. Coeffi-cient alphas were acceptable for both fear of failure (.87) and task aversiveness (.74). Examinationof the third factor indicated a less defined group of items, largely reflecting positive reasons fordelaying tasks (items: 2, 5, 8, 19 and 23). Thus, the highest loading item was �waiting for moreinformation�, although this was the only pure item and the remaining items had mixed loadingson other factors. Factor III was not significantly correlated with the total PASS score(r(172) = .07, ns) and had a low coefficient alpha (.62).In summary, the elimination of unreliable items, and limiting the number of factors, resulted in

a more parsimonious factor structure for the PASS scale. This was best described by two dysfunc-tional procrastination sub-scales each consisting of five well-defined items, compared to the ori-ginal study in which task aversiveness contained just three items (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).These two modified sub-scales were used in further analyses.


2.2.3. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

The Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) is a measure of global self-worth scored on a 4 point,10-item Likert scale, with higher scores representing higher self-esteem. It has acceptable internalreliability, with a reported coefficient alpha of .87. The mean in the present study was 30.27(SD = 4.99). Following elimination of spoilt responses, 83 replies were available for analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive analysis

The total PASS mean score was 19.40 (SD = 3.66), with mean procrastination frequency 10.35(SD = 2.12) and mean procrastination problems 9.08 (SD = 2.22). There was no gender differencesfor either problem (t(55) = .27, ns) or frequency scores (t(55) = 1.23, ns). Defining dysfunctionalprocrastination in terms of high scores (�always� or �nearly always�), 40% of students reported highprocrastination frequency on exams, and 54% on essays. In contrast, only 21% of students hadhigh procrastination problem scores on either essays or exams, with 14% reporting high problemscores for both exams and essays. In other words, the frequency of procrastination was substan-tially greater than the perceived problems with procrastination.

3.2. Relationship of task aversiveness and fear of failure with other variables

Fear of failure (r = .43, p < .001) and task aversiveness (r = .36, p < .001) were both significantlycorrelated with the overall procrastination score. The relationship between the FDS and these twoPASS sub-scales was consistent with the conceptualisation of the FDS as a measure of frustrationintolerance beliefs, independent of self-worth (Table 1). Thus, fear of failure had no significantrelationship with any of the FDS sub-scales, whereas task aversiveness was significantly correlatedwith the discomfort intolerance sub-scale. Furthermore, low self-esteem was significantly related

Table 1

Correlations between the FDS, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and PASS sub-scales

PASS sub-scales

Total Freq. Problems Fear of Failure Task aversive

Emotional intolerance .08 �.13 .26* .19 .18

Entitlement �.10 �.20 .05 .10 .09

Discomfort .31** .19 .34*** .12 .31**

Achievement �.13 �.27* .03 .18 .06

Full score .05 �.13 .22* .19 .20

Rosenberg Self-Esteem �.42*** �.24* �.45*** �.46*** �.12N = 86; N = 83 (self-esteem).* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.


to fear of failure but not task aversiveness. In contrast, the discomfort intolerance sub-scale wassignificantly related to task aversiveness but not fear of failure.

3.3. Relationship between frustration intolerance dimensions and procrastination

Discomfort intolerance was significantly correlated with procrastination problems and with theoverall PASS score, although this failed to reach significance with procrastination frequency(Table 1). On the other hand, the achievement sub-scale had a significant negative relationshipto procrastination frequency, with greater intolerance of goal frustration leading to reducedoccurrence of procrastination. This is perhaps understandable, given that frustration tends to leadto increased activity rather than avoidance. More puzzling was the significant relationship of emo-tional intolerance to both reduced procrastination frequency and increased procrastination prob-lems, although the former was not significant.Students (n = 26) with high procrastination problem scores (above 80th percentile) were found

to have mean discomfort intolerance sub-scores similar to clinical population norms (t(278) = .21,ns) and significantly higher than other students (t(84) = 3.32, p < .001) (Harrington, 2003). How-ever, the same did not apply to emotional intolerance and mean scores on this sub-scale were sig-nificantly better than clinical norms (t(278) = 4.19, p < .001) and comparable to other students(t(84) = 1.84, ns). This is consistent with research showing that patients with anxiety disordersare substantially more avoidant than procrastinators (Ferrari et al., 1995), and suggests that a pa-tient sample and student procrastinators are not comparable regarding the degree of emotionaldistress or emotional intolerance.

3.4. Relationship between self-esteem and procrastination

Low self-esteem was significantly related to procrastination problems and to a lesser extent withprocrastination frequency (Table 1). Interestingly, when fear of failure was controlled in a partialcorrelation analysis, self-esteem still remained significantly related to procrastination problems(pr(80) = �.33, p < .01). This suggests that the relationship of procrastination with self-esteemis not fully explained in terms of fear of failure, and that other beliefs regarding self-worth areinvolved. In particular, the fear of failure sub-scale tends to focus on not doing well enough,rather than general personal inadequacy. Likewise, discomfort intolerance remained significantlyrelated to procrastination problems when controlling for task aversiveness (pr(83) = .30, p < .01),indicating that task aversiveness also represents just one aspect of discomfort intolerance. Inter-esting, the task aversiveness item showing the strongest correlation with discomfort intolerancewas �friends pressuring you to do other things� (r = .47, p < .001). Contrary to what might be ex-pected, this item was not related to low self-esteem (r(83) = �.08, ns).

3.5. Relationship between variables controlling for self-esteem

As was expected from REBT theory, there was substantial overlap between self-esteem andfrustration intolerance. Self-esteem correlated significantly with emotional intolerance(r(83) = �.54, p < .001) and to a lesser extent with discomfort intolerance (r(83) = �.25,p < .05) and achievement (r(83) = �.23, p < .05), but had no significant association with


entitlement (r(83) = �.08, ns). To separate these two categories of belief, and determine their un-ique contribution to procrastination, a series of multiple regression analyses were conducted.Firstly, procrastination frequency was examined with self-esteem and the four FDS sub-scales en-tered as a block (Table 2). Results showed that only discomfort intolerance and self-esteem wereunique predictors of increased procrastination frequency. However, emotional intolerance was asignificant predictor of reduced procrastination frequency, with achievement frustration just fail-ing to reach significance.In a second regression analysis, procrastination problems were investigated by entering self-

esteem and the four FDS sub-scales as a block (Table 3). Discomfort and self-esteem were theonly unique predictors of procrastination problems, with emotional intolerance failing to remainsignificant. A partial correlation analysis indicated that there was considerable overlap betweenemotional intolerance and self-esteem. Thus, when self-esteem was controlled, the relationship be-tween emotional intolerance and procrastination problems was reduced to almost zero(pr(80) = .006, ns). This suggests that emotional intolerance is largely associated with the anxietygenerated by self-esteem difficulties and fear of failure.

3.6. The relationship of the entitlement sub-scale facets with procrastination

The two entitlement facets were also investigated. The gratification facet was of particular inter-est since the desire for immediate gratification has often been cited as a feature of procrastination.

Table 2

Multiple regression: Procrastination frequency

Variables entered t p ß

Emotional intolerance 2.40 .019 �.38Entitlement 1.25 .214 �.15Discomfort 3.66 .001 .43

Achievement 1.80 .075 �.21Self-esteem 3.41 .001 �.40Multiple R = .56.

R2 = .31.

F (5,77) = 6.95, p < .001.

Table 3

Multiple regression analysis: Procrastination problems

Variables entered t p ß

Emotional intolerance 0.36 .718 �.06Entitlement 0.63 .528 �.08Discomfort 2.75 .008 .33

Achievement 1.06 .294 �.13Self-esteem 3.68 .001 �.44Multiple R = .54.

R2 = .29.

F (5,77) = 6.26, p < .001.


However, contrary to expectations, this facet had no significant relationship with procrastinationfrequency (r = �.13, ns) or problems (r = .05, ns). Indeed, the item most representative of imme-diate gratification (‘‘I can�t stand having to wait for things I would like now’’) had a negligiblecorrelation with procrastination frequency (r = .01, ns) and problems (r = .04, ns). The fairnessfacet also had no significant relationship to procrastination problems (r = .04, ns) and was corre-lated with reduced procrastination frequency (r = �.22, p < .05).

4. Discussion

One aim of this study was to validate the FDS against an established procrastination measure.Consistent with REBT theory, self-worth and frustration intolerance beliefs were both indepen-dently related to procrastination problem scores. Furthermore, frustration intolerance and self-esteem were differentially correlated with task aversiveness and fear of failure, supporting conver-gent and discriminative validity. The FDS sub-scales also showed specific relationships withprocrastination, with discomfort intolerance remaining a significant predictor of both procrasti-nation problems and frequency, even after controlling for self-esteem. This highlights the impor-tance of distinguishing between self-worth and frustration intolerance beliefs, and the usefulnessof employing a multidimensional measure of frustration intolerance.It was not surprising that the discomfort intolerance sub-scale, representing the intolerance of

task difficulty, proved an important predictor of procrastination. However, the pattern regardingthe other frustration intolerance dimensions was more complex. Thus, emotional intolerance wassignificantly related to increased procrastination problems. However, it was also associated withlower frequency of procrastination, which is consistent with evidence that avoidant coping is re-lated to reduced procrastination (Burns, Dittmann, Nguyen, & Mitchelson, 2000). A possibleexplanation is that anxiety can motivate individuals to work, but when procrastination does occurthe anxiety generated becomes a problem in itself. This has important theoretical implications insuggesting that �irrational� beliefs may not always be dysfunctional. Although it has beenacknowledged that �irrational� beliefs do not always lead to disturbance (Ellis, 1996), these resultsgo further by indicating that some �irrational� beliefs may actually improve performance.Similarly, the achievement sub-scale was significantly correlated with reduced procrastination

frequency. This is consistent with previous research reporting that high standards and conscien-tiousness are associated with lower procrastination (e.g., Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate,1990). However, the achievement sub-scale was designed to measure intolerance of frustratedgoals, rather than adaptive beliefs regarding high standards. This again suggests that, in some cir-cumstances, �irrational� beliefs may increase functional behaviour. Having said this, whilstachievement frustration might reduce procrastination it may also lead to psychological problemsin other areas, for instance, by increasing work load and levels of stress. In this respect, theachievement sub-scale has been shown to significantly correlate with anxiety and anger (Harring-ton, 2003).The entitlement sub-scale was not related to either procrastination frequency or problems. On

the contrary, the fairness facet had a significant negative correlation with procrastination fre-quency. This fails to support the hypothesis that procrastination and hostility are linked, giventhat the entitlement sub-scale has a strong association with anger (Harrington, 2003). There


was also no support for the hypothesis that procrastination is associated with demands for imme-diate gratification. This suggests that procrastination does not so much reflect sensation seeking,but rather discomfort avoidance.The descriptive analysis indicated that, whilst a majority of students reported high scores on

procrastination frequency, considerably fewer had high procrastination problem scores. This sug-gests that procrastination is commonplace but only a proportion of this is problematic. In thisrespect, self-report measures have obvious limitations, and an objective measure of procrastina-tion problems would be preferable in future studies. A further issue is that, whilst self-esteemwas more strongly associated with overall procrastination compared to discomfort intolerancescores, it is unclear whether this is representative of the general population. Clearly, the presentstudent sample was likely to be highly task motivated, having achieved entry to a very competitivecourse. As such, these students might be expected to have considerably better tolerance of discom-fort but greater fears of failure. Therefore, it would be instructive if future research focused on awider population group, and on individuals with defined problems, both in terms of specific pro-crastination and generalised lifestyle avoidance.Therapeutically, evidence has been sparse as to which specific beliefs are best targeted and for

which problems. The present results suggest that for some students, intolerance of uncomfortabletasks, and the temptation to take comfortable alternatives, is central to procrastination problems.For other students, issues related to self-worth are more important. Furthermore, for a smallerproportion of these individuals, there is an interaction between self-worth and frustration intoler-ance beliefs. Thus, fear of failure may lead to increased anxiety and then to problems with toler-ating these emotions. However, whilst dysfunctional beliefs may interact, this research suggeststhat effective therapy is best served by clear separation and intervention regarding these differentbeliefs. Some students need to recognise and challenge beliefs that reinforce comfortable avoid-ance, whether the intolerance of task difficulty or emotional distress. For other students, the beliefthat self-worth is dependent on performance should be the focus. In general, there has been a ten-dency for cognitive approaches to focus on self-worth rather than frustration intolerance beliefs.This may reflect the greater salience and accessibility of beliefs referring to self-worth, or theexpectation that these are more meaningful. However, the present study suggests this is mistaken,and that beliefs regarding frustration intolerance are as important as self-worth and should not beoverlooked.

Acknowledgement

This paper is based on research submitted to the University of Edinburgh in part fulfilment of aDoctorate of Philosophy degree. I would like to thank Professor Mick Power for his supervisionand encouragement.

References

Beswick, G., Rothblum, E. D., & Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedents of student procrastination. Australian

Psychologist, 23, 207–217.


Burns, R. L., Dittmann, K., Nguyen, N., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2000). Academic procrastination, perfectionism, and

control: Associations with vigilant and avoidant coping. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 35–46.

Comrey, A. L. (1978). Common methodological problems in factor analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 46, 648–659.

Dryden, W., & Gordon, W. (1993). Beating the comfort trap. London: Sheldon Press.

Ellis, A. (1979). Discomfort anxiety: A new cognitive behavioral construct. In A. Ellis & W. Dryden (Eds.), The

essential Albert Ellis. New York: Springer.

Ellis, A. (1996). Responses to criticisms of rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Journal of Rational-Emotive and

Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 14, 97–121.

Ellis, A., & Dryden, W. (1987). The practice of rational emotive therapy. New York: Springer.

Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Institute for Rational Living.

Ferrari, J. R., & Emmons, R. A. (1994). Procrastination as revenge: Do people report using delays as a strategy for

vengeance? Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 539–544.

Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and

treatment. New York: Plenum.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Martin, T. R. (1995). Dimensions of perfectionism and procrastination. In J. R. Ferrari, T.

L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. New

York: Plenum.

Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two measures of

perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119–126.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and

Research, 14, 449–468.

Harrington, N. (2003). The development of a multidimensional scale to measure irrational beliefs regarding frustration

intolerance. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Harrington, N. (2005). Dimensions of frustration intolerance and their relationship to self-control problems. Journal of

Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 23(1).

McCown, W., & Johnson, J. (1991). Personality and chronic procrastination by university students during an academic

examination period. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 413–415.

Milgram, N., Srolof, B., & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The Procrastination of everyday life. Journal of Research in

Personality, 22, 197–212.

Neenan, M., & Dryden, W. (1999). Rational emotive behaviour therapy: Advances in theory and practice. London:

Whurr.

Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: An experience sampling study of

undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 239–254.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Schouwenburg, H. C. (1992). Procrastinators and fear of failure: An exploration of reasons for procrastination.

European Journal of Personality, 6, 225–236.

Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509.

Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse

control: If you feel bad, do it! Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 53–67.

It’s too difficult! Frustration intolerance beliefs and procrastination

Documents

Transcript of It’s too difficult! Frustration intolerance beliefs and procrastination