Journal of Research in Personality 34, 127137 (2000) doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2247, available online at http://www.idealibrary.

com on

BRIEF REPORT
Examining Behavioral Processes in Indecision: Decisional Procrastination and Decision-Making Style
Joseph R. Ferrari
DePaul University

and John F. Dovidio

Colgate University The present research examined the behavioral processes by which individual differences in decisional procrastination are reected in decision-making style. It was hypothesized, on the basis of previous research suggesting that people higher in decisional procrastination have a higher threshold for certainty before making a decision, that participants higher in decisional procrastination would not only take longer to complete the task, but also would seek more information about an alternative eventually chosen before making a decision. Participants, who had previously completed a decisional procrastination scale, were instructed within a behavioral process paradigm to search information about alternative choices on a decisionmaking task involving the selection of college courses. The number of dimensions (four vs six) and number of alternatives (two vs ve) were systematically varied. The results provided convergent evidence with descriptive studies suggesting that rather than being unsystematic and easily distracted in their information searches, people higher in decisional procrastination are systematic and strategic but search for more information specically about chosen alternatives. Theoretical and practical implications are considered. 2000 Academic Press

Decisional procrastination (see Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995; Mann, 1982) is a maladaptive pattern of postponing a decision when faced with conicts and choices. Although there is considerable evidence that people higher in decisional procrastination take longer to make decisions (BesAddress correspondence and reprint requests to Joseph R. Ferrari, Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 N. Kenmore, Chicago, IL 60614. E-mail: jferrari@wppost.depaul.edu. 127 0092-6566/00 $35.00
Copyright 2000 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

128

BRIEF REPORT

wick, Rothblum, & Mann, 1988; Effert & Ferrari, 1989; Ferrari & Emmons, 1994; Frost & Shows, 1993), there is little research examining how people high and low in decisional procrastination differ in the way they make decisions. The present research examined how an individual difference variable associated with procrastination predicts not only how long it takes to reach a decision but also the styles that people use to make decisions. The indirect evidence that does exist about how people higher in decisional procrastination make decisions is somewhat contradictory in its implications. Some research shows that people higher in decisional procrastination are more easily distracted (Harriott, Ferrari, & Dovidio, 1996), suggesting that they may be less systematic in their decision-making styles. Alternatively, other research implies that people who score high in decisional procrastination may actually be as systematic as those low in decisional procrastination, but they may continue to search out additional information about the chosen alternative after people low in decisional procrastination are prepared to make a decision. Indecisiveness is associated with a lower level of condence (Greblo & Mirels, 1997) and a higher threshold for certainty before making a decision (Frost & Shows, 1993), which in turn may relate to attempts to minimize the risk of making a mistake (Salizman, 1979). Consistent with this reasoning, individuals who score higher in decisional procrastination also report greater hoarding behaviors and higher levels of perfectionism (Beswick et al., 1988; Effert & Ferrari, 1989; Ferrari, 1992; Ferrari & Emmons, 1994; Frost & Shows, 1993). Perhaps because of their greater cautiousness, people higher in decisional procrastination may be more behaviorally rigid and thus be more likely to hold onto previous performance styles, even when they are no longer optimal. Ferrari and Dovidio (1998) found that higher scorers in decisional procrastination were less able to shift with functional efciency across situations and tasks. Based empirically on the preponderance of correlational evidence and theoretically on the ndings that decisional procrastination is associated with motivations to minimize the risk of making a mistake (Frost & Shows, 1993) and avoid attributions of personal failure (Beswick et al., 1988), we hypothesized that people higher in decisional procrastination search out more information about a chosen alternative than do people lower in decisional procrastination before they make a decision. Furthermore, this tendency may be more pronounced with more complicated decisions. These more difcult decisions present a higher subjective likelihood of making a mistake and of failing and thus may exacerbate the effects of decisional procrastination. The problem-solving situation presented to the participants of the present study, which involved determining preferences for a hypothetical college course from their major, represents the behavioral process approach (Jacoby, Jaccard, Kuss, Troutman, & Mazursky, 1987) used in consumer research and decision-making research. Participants were instructed to search

BRIEF REPORT

129

information about each of several alternatives and then to make a decision about the one alternative they most desired. The complexity of the decisionmaking task was manipulated by varying the number (four or six) of attribute dimensions (e.g., time of day, quality of instructor) of potential courses and the number (two or ve) of alternative college courses that could be chosen. The main dependent measures for this task are not the actual choice of a specic alternative but rather the search process that leads to this selection. One measure of the search style is the depth of the search, operationally dened as the proportion of available information searched (i.e., the number of cards removed and read during the task relative to the total number of cards available). Of particular interest for the present study is the distinction between the amount of available information searched concerning the alternative chosen and the amount of information searched about other, nonselected alternatives. A second primary type of measure relates to the search sequence, which represents the consistency of the strategy. It refers to the number and type of transitions made from one cell to another throughout the entire search and provides insight into rules people employ when making decisions (Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1993). In general, we predicted that participants relatively high in decisional procrastination would take longer to complete the task, particularly when more alternative solutions were available. We further predicted, based on research suggesting that procrastination may be rooted in motivations to minimize risk of making a mistake (e.g., Frost & Shows, 1993), that people higher in decisional procrastination would search out more information about a chosen alternative before making a decision than would people lower in decisional procrastination. Support for this prediction would be reected specically in people higher in decisional procrastination searching for more information about the chosen alternative and making more intradimensional shifts. People higher or lower in decisional procrastination were not expected to differ in the amount of information search about alternatives not chosen or in the number of interdimensional shifts. METHOD Participants
Participants were 130 undergraduate students (105 women and 25 men between 18 and 21 years old) who received extra course credit for being their involvement in the study.

Procedure
All participants had been previously tested in large groups at least 2 weeks earlier on Manns (1982) 5-item (15 response format) Decisional Procrastination Scale. This scale has been shown to have good testretest reliability (.69 after 1 month, Beswick et al., 1988; see also Ferrari et al., 1995) and a substantial number of validity studies supporting its use (see Ferrari

130

BRIEF REPORT

et al., 1995). For this sample, scores ranged from 5 to 23, with a median of 12.0, a mean of 11.86, and standard deviation of 3.86. The Cronbach was .70. Upon arrival at the laboratory for the decision-making task, each participant, who was tested individually, was informed by one of two female experimenters that the study they were about to begin involved how people reach real-world decisions, such as choosing college courses. On a 36 48-in. information board, each row represented a different target course and each column represented different course attributes or dimensions (e.g., amount of work). Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in which there were either two or ve rows (alternative course selections) and four or six columns (course attributes to consider). The ve potential courses were labeled alphabetically from A to E. The six potential course attributes were the time of day that the course was offered, instructor quality, career relevance, transferability, amount of work, and peer recommendation. The sequence of labels and the information about attributes were randomized across participants. Index cards (3 5 in), placed face-down in each cell, indicated the attributes that characterized the target along one of three levels. For example, the information for time of day included 8:30 A.M., 11:45 A.M., or 4:45 P.M.; instructor quality was poor, good, or excellent; and career relevance was poor, good, or excellent. Each participant was given an explanation of the information board and instruction on how to use it. Participants were told that information describing each college course was printed on the back of the index cards. These cards had to be turned over to reveal the information about that attribute for a particular course. Participants were allowed to turn over as few or as many cards as they needed to make a decision. The participants were informed that the study would be concluded when they made a decision based on the information provided. After completing the task, participants were verbally debriefed, given credit for their participation, and dismissed. Half of the participants were exposed to an information board with only two rows, each representing a college course alternative (course A or course B), whereas the other half of the participants were presented with all ve rows as alternatives (courses A to E). Furthermore, half of the participants were presented with four course attribute dimensions, whereas the other half of the participants were presented with all six attributes. Therefore, the manipulations in this study produced a 2 (Number of Alternatives: two or ve) 2 (Number of Dimensions: four or six) between-groups design. The total amount of information between conditions varied as 8, 12, 20, or 30 pieces of data (or cards). The experimenter, unaware of the participants decisional procrastination score, recorded the time (in seconds) for the participant to make a decision, the sequence of searching, the total number of cards turned over, the number of cards turned over for the alternative that was chosen, and the number of cards turned over for alternatives that were not selected. The primary dependent measures in this study included the amount of time taken to reach a decision, the percentage of total information searched, as well as the separate percentage of cards searched for the alternative chosen and for alternatives that were not chosen. These measures permitted an overall assessment of the depth of search plus a comparison of search depth between preferred and nonpreferred alternatives by people varying in level of decisional procrastination. In addition, the frequency of interdimensional and intradimensional transitions made during the search were examined. A measure of the proportion of intradimensional shifts was also computed as the number of intradimensional shifts relative to the total number of transitions (intradimensional shifts interdimensional shifts). These measures permit an analysis of how participants search the available information as they make their decision.

RESULTS The primary analyses involved were multiple regressions in which Alternatives (two vs ve) and Dimensions (four vs six) were treated as dichoto-

BRIEF REPORT

131

mous independent variables (dummy coded) and Decisional Procrastination was treated as a continuous independent variable. Hierarchical multiple regressions rst examined the main effects for the three predictor variables, then the two-way interactions, and nally the three-way interaction (Cohen & Cohen, 1975). The dependent measures were time to make a decision and aspects of the search processes.1 Preliminary analyses revealed no differences between men and women on decisional procrastination (consistent with previous research; see Ferrari et al., 1995) or on any of the dependent variables, and the regressions demonstrated no systematic main effects or interactions for participant sex. Consequently, this variable was not included in subsequent analyses. Table 1 presents the correlation matrix for the predictor variables and the dependent measures (including their means and standard deviations). Decision-Making Time As expected, people who scored higher in decisional procrastination took longer overall to reach a decision ( .20, t 2.71, p .008). However, this effect was moderated by the number of alternatives; a marginally signicant Decisional Procrastination Alternative interaction was obtained ( .48, t 1.94, p .054). The effect associated with decisional procrastination tended to be stronger when there were ve alternatives ( .29, t 2.41, p .019) than when there were two ( .20, t 1.64, p .110). The full regression equation accounted for 36% of the variance in decision times. Thus, consistent with previous research, people higher in decisional procrastination took longer to make decisions, particularly when choosing from more alternatives. Amount of Information Searched There were three measures of the amount of information searched: the percentage searched of all the available information, the percentage of information searched relating to the alternative chosen, and the percentage related to alternatives not chosen. Although participants higher in decisional procrastination did not search a signicantly higher percentage of all available information ( .12, t 1.45, p .150) or about nonchosen alternatives ( .10, t 1.16, p .267), consistent with the hypothesis that people higher in decisional procrastination are more focused in their information search, they did search a signicantly higher percentage of information about the
1 The results reported focus on the effects (main effects and interactions) involving decisional procrastination. More detailed information about the analyses is available from the authors. For example, consistent with the intended manipulation of task complexity, participants took longer to make decisions when there were ve relative to two alternatives ( p .001) and when there were six rather than four dimensions involved ( p .006).

132

TABLE 1 Correlation Matrix for Predictor and Dependent Variables

Task Time (TIMET) 92.89 s 71.60 s 70.16% 24.92% 84.25% 20.96% 65.60% 27.69% 3.95 4.43 Available Choice Nonchoice Relative Information Information Information Intradimensional Interdimensional Number Searched Searched Searched Shifts Shifts of Shifts (PGAVAIL) (PGCHOI) (PGNCHOI) (INTRAD) (INTERD) (DIMSH) 6.63 4.99 0.37 0.27
BRIEF REPORT

Alternatives Dimensions Decisional (two vs ve) (four vs six) Procrastination (ALT25) (DIM46) (DECPSC)

Mean SD

11.86 3.86

ALT25 DIM46 DECPSC TIMET PGAVAIL PGCHOI PGNCHOI INTRAD INTERD DIMSH 1.0000 .1315 .2460** .1188 .3981** .4753** .0022 1.0000 .6507** .9424** .2817** .2847** .1099 1.0000 .4885** .2211* .3561** .0658 1.0000 .2744** .2671** .1363

1.0000 .0152 .0086 .5009** .2364** .1594 .2741** .3645** .5159** .0620

1.0000 .0435 .2194* .0901 .1214 .0577 .2284** .2001* .0106

1.0000 .2015* .1222 .1819* .0949 .1979* .0478 .1713

1.0000 .0501 .6554**

1.0000 .4669**

1.0000

* p .05. ** p .01.

BRIEF REPORT

133

choice they ultimately made ( .19, t 2.21, p .030). The full regression model accounted for 8% of the variance. Inter- and Intradimensional Shifts Three other measures of participants search strategies were examined: (1) the number of intradimensional shifts, (2) the number of intradimensional shifts, and (3) the proportion of intradimensional shifts relative to the total number of shifts (intradimensional and interdimensional). It was hypothesized that participants higher in decisional procrastination would make more intradimensional than interdimensional choices, reecting a narrower search strategy. As predicted, participants higher in decisional procrastination made more intradimensional shifts ( .19, t 2.43, p .017). A marginally signicant Decisional Procrastination Alternatives interaction was also obtained ( .49, t 1.87, p .064), indicating that the effect for Decisional Procrastination was somewhat stronger in the ve-alternative condition ( .26, t 2.13, p .037) than in the two-alternative condition ( .22, t 1.82, p .075). The regression model accounted for 27% of the variance. Decisional procrastination was not related to the number of interdimensional shifts ( .05, t 0.70, p .487). With respect to the relative proportions of search selections, as expected, participants who scored higher in decisional procrastination tended to make a higher relative proportion of intradimensional shifts ( .17, t 1.95, p .054). The full regression equation accounted for 7% of the variance. Does Search Style Mediate the Relationship between Decisional Procrastination and Time? A primary objective of the present study was to understand whether people differing in levels of decisional procrastination engaged in different decisionmaking styles. The results suggest that they do. A secondary question is whether these differences in decision styles and strategies directly mediate the relationship between decisional procrastination and decision-making time. To explore this possibility, the multiple regression mediation approach proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) was used. Evidence for mediation would be reected in three ndings: (1) level of decisional procrastination predicts decision-making time; (2) level of decisional procrastination predicts search style measures; and (3) the relation of level of decisional procrastination to decision-making time is substantially attenuated after controlling for the effect of the search style measures, while the effects of the search style mediators are signicant. Reecting the simple correlation presented in Table 1, in the rst regression decisional procrastination signicantly predicted decision-making time ( .20, t 2.33, p .022). The second set of regressions, in which

134

BRIEF REPORT

decisional procrastination was included as the independent variable and then each of the measures of search strategy (available information searched, choice information searched, nonchoice information searched, intradimensional shifts, interdimensional shifts, and relative number of shifts) were considered as dependent measures, revealed that two measures potentially qualied as mediators: choice information searched ( .18, t 2.09, p .039) and intradimensional shifts ( .20, t 2.28, p .024). As indicated in Table 1, none of the other correlations were statistically signicant. The last equation considered decisional procrastination and the two measures of search style that qualied as mediators (percentage of information searched about the chosen alternative and the number of intradimensional shifts) simultaneously as predictors of decision-making time. This equation revealed evidence of mediation. When the two potential mediating variables were considered, decisional procrastination no longer signicantly predicted decision-making time ( .11, t 1.29, p .20). However, when tested simultaneously in this equation, the number of intradimensional shifts ( .34, t 4.14, p .001) signicantly predicted decision-making time and the percentage of information searched about the chosen alternative was marginally signicant ( .15, t 1.82, p .072) Thus, the relationship between decisional procrastination and decision time was mediated, at least in part, by search strategy. DISCUSSION Consistent with previous research on the fundamental behavioral manifestation of decisional procrastination (see Ferrari et al., 1995), in the present study participants higher in decisional procrastination took longer to complete the task, particularly when more alternatives were available to consider. The relationship between decisional procrastination scores and time to complete the task was somewhat modest (for example, r .20 overall), however. One factor that might have limited this relationship is the fact that there was at least a 2-week gap between assessment of decisional procrastination and the experimental procedure. If decisional procrastination scores are unstable across time, the relationship would be attenuated. Previous research has demonstrated satisfactory, but not especially high, testretest reliability for the scale (.69 after 1 month, Beswick et al., 1988). Nevertheless, the relationship we obtained in a relatively constrained laboratory context was somewhat lower but still comparable to the one found by Burnett, Mann, and Beswick (1989) between decisional procrastination and planning for course selections by college students under more naturalistic circumstances (r .32). The main focus of the present study, however, was on how people differing in decisional procrastination make their decisions. Our results provide convergent evidence with a number of descriptive studies (Beswick et al., 1988; Effert & Ferrari, 1989; Ferrari & Emmons, 1994), suggesting that rather than

BRIEF REPORT

135

being associated with unsystematic and easily distracted search strategies, people relatively high in decisional procrastination do engage in systematic and strategic searchesbut in a way different than those low in decisional procrastination. Those higher in decisional procrastination, who were hypothesized to require more certainty before they make a decision, searched a larger percentage of information about the alternative eventually chosen and made more intradimensional shifts. These effects occurred uniquely for behaviors associated with the chosen alternative, not for information searched about for nonchosen alternatives or for interdimensional transitions. Searching for more information about the chosen alternative and making more of intradimensional shifts, in turn, mediated the relationship between decisional procrastination and decision-making time. These results supported the predictions. In addition to providing evidence for the process we hypothesized, it is also possible that people high and low in decisional procrastination differ more fundamentally in the types of decision strategies they use. That is, people higher in decisional procrastination may be using more narrow and rigid strategies. Searching for more information about the chosen alternative and focusing primarily in an intradimensional direction may reect this narrow strategy. However, even though generally plausible, this explanation does not provide the most parsimonious account for the data obtained in the present study. In particular, it is not clear why a more narrow search, by itself, would lead to longer decision times. Moreover, if people higher in decisional procrastination were using more narrow searches, then it is likely that they would be less affected in their decision times when more alternatives were presented. The statistical interaction between decisional procrastination and the number of available alternatives that was demonstrated in the present study shows the opposite pattern, however. Nevertheless, given the plausibility of this interpretation with some partial supporting evidence in the present study, future research might productively focus on the potentially different strategies used by people varying in decisional procrastination as well as examine more directly some of the mechanisms hypothesized in the present research by including subjective measures of uncertainty, exploring the effects of systematic variations in the attractiveness of alternatives (see Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), or using alternative paradigms for testing specically how information access can reduce uncertainty (see, in particular, Jacoby, Jaccard, Currim, Ansari, & Troutman, 1994). These studies could also use think aloud procedures that compare the ongoing deliberations of participants. Understanding how different decision-making styles potentially underlie decisional procrastination also has practical value in terms of guiding interventions to address problems of decisional procrastination. Procrastination, according to the cognitive-behavioral explanation rst popularized by Ellis

136

BRIEF REPORT

and Knaus (1977), may be based on irrational fears and self-criticism about ones ability to complete a task successfully. This reasoning is compatible with the conclusion of Frost and Shows (1993) that decisional procrastination may reect a higher threshold for certainty before making a decision to minimize the risk of making a mistake, as well as with our own ndings. Therefore, despite the potential immediate negative consequences of decisional procrastination, it may have positive long-term functions for the individual. That is, although procrastination may often be self-defeating, this behavior may also be in ones self-interest in maintaining a positive self-image and sense of personal control (Ferrari, 1994). If, as the present research suggests, decisional procrastination is associated with greater caution and the desire for more information about an alternative to be chosen, then the implications for addressing problems of decisional procrastination are signicantly different than if the problem were caused by distractibility or absentmindedness. Thus, the present research demonstrates that people varying in levels of decisional procrastination systematically differ not only in how long they take to make a decision but also in how they make their decisions. REFERENCES
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182. Beswick, G., Rothblum, E. D., & Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedents to student procrastination. Australian Psychologist, 23, 207217. Burnett, P. C., Mann, L., & Beswick, G. (1989). Validation of the Flinders Decision-making Questionnaire on course decision making by students. Australian Psychologist, 24, 285 292. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley. Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Signet. Effert, B., & Ferrari, J. R. (1989). Decisional procrastination: Examining personality correlates. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 151156. Ferrari, J. R. (1994). Dysfunctional procrastination and its relationship with self-esteem, interpersonal dependency, and self-defeating behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 539544. Ferrari, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (1998, February). Decisional procrastination and individual differences in behavioral rigidity. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA. Ferrari, J. R., & Emmons, R. A. (1994). Procrastination and revenge: Do people report using delays as a strategy for vengeance? Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 539544. Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. J., & McCown, W. C. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum. Frost, R. O., & Shows, D. L. (1993). The nature and measurement of compulsive indecisiveness. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 31, 683692. Greblo, P., & Mirels, H. L. (1997). Predicting judgments of condence: Dispositional and

BRIEF REPORT

137

situational determinants. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Harriott, J. S., Ferrari, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (1996). Distractibility, daydreaming, and self-critical cognitions as determinants of indecision. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 337344. Jacoby, J., Jaccard, J. J., Currim, I., Ansari, A., & Troutman, T. (1994). Tracing the impact of item-by-item information accessing on uncertainty reduction. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 291303. Jacoby, J., Jaccard, J. J., Kuss, A., Troutman, T., & Mazursky, D. (1987). New directions in behavioral process research: Implications for social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 146175. Mann, L. (1982). Decision-Making Questionnaire. Unpublished scale, Flinders University of South Australia. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag. Salizman, L. (1979). Psychotherapy of the obsessional. American Journal of Psychiatry, 33, 3240.