onwuegbuzie.p65 I’ll Go to the Library Later 45 I’ll Go to the Library Later: The Relationship between Academic Procrastination and Library Anxiety Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie and Qun G. Jiao Approximately 95 percent of college students procrastinate on academic tasks such as writing term papers, studying for examinations, and keep­ ing up with weekly reading assignments. At the graduate level, an esti­ mated 60 percent of students procrastinate on academic tasks. Aca­ demic procrastination stems primarily from fear of failure and task aversiveness. It has been theorized, though not tested empirically, that highly anxious graduate students typically procrastinate while engaged in library-related tasks. This study investigated the relationship between academic procrastination and library anxiety at the graduate level. Par­ ticipants included 135 graduate students enrolled in three sections of a required introductory-level educational research course. Findings re­ vealed that, overall, academic procrastination was significantly positively related to the following dimensions of library anxiety: affective barriers, comfort with the library, and mechanical barriers. A canonical correla­ tion analysis revealed that academic procrastination resulting from both fear of failure and task aversiveness was related significantly to barriers with staff, affective barriers, comfort with the library, and knowledge of the library. Implications for library anxiety reduction as a procrastination intervention are discussed. t is estimated that approxi- ing for examinations, and keeping up mately 95 percent of college with weekly reading assignments.7 Aca­ students engage in frequent demic procrastination also is associated academic procrastination, the with missing deadlines for submitting purposive delay in beginning or complet­ ing academic tasks.1–2 Academic procras­ tination has been found to be prevalent among both undergraduate and graduate students, across racial categories, and be­ tween genders.3–6 Studies indicate that the tasks that induce academic procrastina­ tion include writing term papers, study- assignments, delaying the taking of self- paced quizzes, claiming test anxiety, re­ ceiving low course grades, and attaining low cumulative grade point averages.8–12 Laura J. Solomon and Esther D. Rothblum found that between 27 and 46 percent of undergraduate students re­ ported that they always or almost always Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, at Valdosta State University; e-mail: tonwuegb@valdosta.edu. Qun G. Jiao is an Associate Professor and Reference Librarian in Newman Library, Baruch College, at the City University of New York; e-mail: qunbb@cunyvm.cuny.edu. 45 mailto:qunbb@cunyvm.cuny.edu mailto:tonwuegb@valdosta.edu 46 College & Research Libraries January 2000 procrastinated on writing term papers, studying for examinations, and keeping up with weekly readings. The authors also dis­ covered that nearly one-quarter of these students reported that procrastination was always or almost always a problem for them when undertaking these tasks.13 Similarly, Jeffrey L. Clark and Oliver W. Hill found that between 30 and 45 per­ cent of African-American undergraduate students reported problems with procras­ tination on writing term papers, study­ ing for examinations, and keeping up with weekly reading assignments. More­ over, between 55 and 60 percent of the students wanted to decrease their pro­ crastination on these tasks.14 The study participants consisted of 135 graduate students enrolled in several sections of a graduate-level research methodology course at a small midsouthern university. Using factor analysis, Solomon and Rothblum found that fear of failure and task aversiveness are the primary reasons for procrastinating, with the former ex­ plaining 49 percent of the variance in why undergraduate students procrastinate and the latter accounting for 18 percent of the variance. The fear of failure factor includes items that relate to evaluation anxiety and overly perfectionistic standards for one’s performance and low self-confidence. In contrast, the task aversiveness factor com­ prises items that reflect a dislike of engag­ ing in academic activities and a lack of en­ ergy. The authors reported that the percent­ age of college students who endorsed items representing the fear of failure factor ranged from 6.3 to 14.1 percent, whereas endorsement of the task aversiveness fac­ tor ranged from 19.4 to 47.0 percent. These findings led the authors to conclude that procrastinators at the undergraduate level could be divided into two groups: a rela­ tively small, but extremely homogenous, group of students who procrastinate be­ cause of fear of failure; and a relatively het­ erogeneous group of students who pro­ crastinate because of task aversiveness.15 Recently, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie found that 41.7 percent of graduate stu­ dents reported that they always or almost always procrastinate on writing a term paper, 39.3 percent procrastinate on study­ ing for examinations, and 60.0 percent pro­ crastinate on keeping up with weekly reading assignments. In addition, between 21 and 42 percent reported that procrasti­ nation was always or almost always a problem when undertaking these tasks, and between 65 and 72 percent wanted to decrease their tendency to procrastinate.16 Surprisingly, graduate students may have an even greater tendency to procras­ tinate on academic tasks than do under­ graduate students. Indeed, Onwuegbuzie found that graduate students were nearly 3.5 times more likely to report that they always or almost always procrastinate on keeping up with weekly reading assign­ ments and nearly 2.5 times more likely to report that procrastination was always or almost always a problem when studying for examinations than were a comparison group of undergraduate students in Solomon and Rothblum’s study.17,18 Although the effects of academic pro­ crastination among graduate students can influence performance in all academic ar­ eas, it is likely that it is particularly detri­ mental when students are engaged in pro­ posing and/or conducting research, as is typically the case in research methodology courses. Onwuegbuzie found that many graduate students procrastinate at various stages of the research process, including while engaged in the literature review pro­ cess.19 Because many students also experi­ ence library anxiety while conducting re­ search, it is likely that academic procrasti­ nation is related to library anxiety, although this has not been tested empirically.20 Constance A. Mellon described library anxiety as a situation-specific, negative feel­ ing or emotional disposition that occurs when a student is in a library setting.21 It also has been reported that library anxiety de-motivates students from beginning or prolonging their search, thereby impeding development of their library skills.22–24 Ac­ cording to Carol C. Kuhlthau, students with http:setting.21 http:empirically.20 http:procrastinate.16 http:aversiveness.15 http:tasks.14 http:tasks.13 I’ll Go to the Library Later 47 high levels of library anxiety tend to engage in negative ruminations that lead to cogni­ tive interference during various stages of the information search process. Kuhlthau iden­ tified six stages during which anxiety lev­ els may be elevated: task initiation, topic selection, prefocus exploration, focus formu­ lation, information collection, and search closure.25,26 Onwuegbuzie reported that many graduate students constantly ex­ pressed their discomfort with the library search process, suggesting that they expe­ rience difficulties adapting to the library en­ vironment.27 According to Rothblum, Soloman, and Janice Murakami, academic procrastina­ tors have the self-reported tendency to al­ ways or almost always experience prob­ lematic levels of anxiety.28 Moreover, aca­ demic procrastination has been found to be related positively to generalized and specific kinds of anxiety such as test anxi­ ety, social anxiety, and statistics anxiety.29– 31 Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between aca­ demic procrastination and library anxi­ ety. Specifically, the relationships between academic procrastination and five library anxiety dimensions were studied empiri­ cally. It was hypothesized that academic procrastination would be positively re­ lated to library anxiety. Method Participants The study participants consisted of 135 graduate students enrolled in several sec­ tions of a graduate-level research method­ ology course at a small midsouthern uni­ versity. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous, with no stu­ dent declining. To participate, students were required to sign informed consent documents. The ages of the participants ranged from twenty-one to fifty-one (mean = 26.0, SD = 6.8). Mean academic achieve­ ment, as measured by grade point aver­ age, was 3.57 (SD = 0.36). The overwhelm­ ing majority of the participants were female (92.6 percent) and white (93.3%). However, a nonparametric Wilcoxon two-sample t- test revealed no gender difference (p < .05) with respect to levels of overall academic procrastination, fear of failure, and task aversiveness.32 Indeed, this finding is con­ sistent with other studies in which procras­ tination scores by males and females were not significantly different.33–36 In addition, a series of Wilcoxon two-sample t-tests re­ vealed no gender difference (p < .05) with respect to the five dimensions of library anxiety. Thus, all data were collapsed across gender. Instruments and Procedure Participants were administered the Library Anxiety Scale (LAS) and the Procrastination Assessment Scale—Students (PASS). Devel­ oped by Sharon L. Bostick, the LAS is a 43­ item, 5-point Likert-format instrument that assesses levels of library anxiety.37 The in­ strument has five subscales: barriers with staff, affective barriers, comfort with the li­ brary, knowledge of the library, and me­ chanical barriers. “Barriers with staff” re­ fers to the perceptions of students that librarians and other library staff are intimi­ dating, unapproachable, and too busy to provide assistance in using the library. “Af­ fective barriers” stems from students’ feel­ ings of inadequacy about using the library. “Comfort with the library” deals with how safe, welcoming, and nonthreatening stu­ dents perceive the library to be. “Knowledge of the library” refers to how familiar stu­ dents feel they are with the library. Finally, “mechanical barriers” refers to feelings that emerge as a result of student reliance on mechanical library equipment, including computer printers, copy machines, and change machines. A high score on any subscale represents high anxiety in this area. Qun G. Jiao and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie found that the LAS subscales generated scores that yielded coefficient alpha reliabilities ranging from .60 (mechanical barriers) to .90 (barriers with staff).38 For the present study, scores from the subscales yielded alpha reliability coefficients rang­ ing from .65 (knowledge of the library) to .94 (barriers with staff). The PASS, which was developed by Solomon and Rothblum, consists of two parts.39 The first part lists six academic http:parts.39 http:staff).38 http:anxiety.37 http:aversiveness.32 http:anxiety.29 http:anxiety.28 http:vironment.27 48 College & Research Libraries January 2000 tasks involving writing a term paper, studying for examinations, keeping up with weekly reading assignments, per­ forming administrative tasks, attending meetings, and performing academic tasks in general. Respondents are asked to com­ plete three rating scales for the six tasks indicating the frequency with which they procrastinate on each task (1 = Never pro­ crastinate; 5 = Always procrastinate), whether their procrastination on the task is a problem (1 = Not at all a problem; 5 = Always a problem), and whether they want to decrease their procrastination on the task (1 = Do not want to decrease; 5 = Definitely want to decrease). As recom­ mended by Solomon and Rothblum, the PASS items pertaining to the frequency with which respondents procrastinate on a task and whether their procrastination is a problem were summed to provide an overall measure of academic procrastina­ tion, with total scores ranging from twelve to sixty. Higher scores are indicative of self- reported academic procrastination.40 The second section of the PASS asks students to think of the last time they pro­ crastinated on writing a term paper. Stu­ dents then indicated how much each of the twenty-six reasons reflected why they procrastinated (1 = Not at all reflects why I procrastinated; 5 = Definitely reflects why I procrastinated). A factor analysis undertaken by Solomon and Rothblum on the reasons why college students pro­ crastinate indicated two factors: fear of failure and task aversiveness.41 The PASS has been shown to possess adequate construct validity, as evidenced by significant relationships between scores on the scale and behavioral measures of procrastination such as delay in taking self- paced quizzes and in handing in a term paper, delay in submitting course require­ ments, and delay in participating in psy­ chology experiments.42–44 Furthermore, Jo­ seph R. Ferrari reported adequate internal consistency estimates for each part of the PASS and both factors ranging from .60 to .80, and acceptable test–retest reliabilities at one month ranging from .63 to .74.45 For the present study, the coefficient alpha re­ liability estimates of the PASS measures were .84 for the procrastination scale, .85 for the fear of failure factor, and .76 for the task aversiveness factor. Data Analysis A canonical correlation analysis was con­ ducted to identify a combination of rea­ sons for procrastination dimensions (namely, fear of failur e and task aversiveness) that might be correlated with a combination of library anxiety di­ mensions. Canonical correlation analysis is utilized to examine the relationship between two sets of variables when each set contains more than one variable.46–49 Indeed, as noted by Thomas R. Knapp, “virtually all of the commonly encoun­ tered tests of significance can be treated as special cases of canonical correlation analysis.”50 That is, canonical correlation analysis can be used to undertake all the parametric tests that canonical correlation methods subsume as special cases, includ­ ing t-tests, multiple regression, analysis of variance, and analysis of covariance.51 In the present study, the five dimensions of library anxiety were treated as the de­ pendent multivariate set of variables, whereas the two components of reasons for procrastination were utilized as the independent multivariate set of variables. The number of canonical functions (i.e., factors) that can be generated for a given data set is equal to the number of variables in the smaller of the two variable sets. Be­ cause the reason for procrastination sec­ tion of the PASS has two dimensions and the LAS has five dimensions, two canoni­ cal functions were generated. For the first canonical coefficient, stan­ dardized canonical function coefficients and structure coefficients were computed. Standardized canonical function coeffi­ cients are computed weights that are ap­ plied to each variable in a given set in or­ der to obtain the composite variate used in the canonical correlation analysis. As such, standardized canonical function co­ efficients are analogous to factor pattern coefficients in factor analysis or to beta coefficients in a regression analysis.52 Struc­ http:analysis.52 http:covariance.51 http:aversiveness.41 http:procrastination.40 I’ll Go to the Library Later 49 ture coefficients are the correlations be­ tween a given variable and the scores on the canonical composite (namely, the la­ tent variable) in the set to which the vari­ able belongs.53 Thus, structure coefficients indicate the extent to which each variable is related to the canonical composite for the variable set. Indeed, structure coeffi­ cients are essentially bivariate correlation coefficients that range in value between ­ 1.0 and +1.0 inclusive.54 The square of the structure coefficient is the proportion of variance that the original variable shares linearly with the canonical variate. Results Table 1 presents the Pearson product-mo­ ment correlations (zero-order correlations) between overall academic procrastination and the five dimensions of library anxiety. Using the Bonferroni adjustment to con­ trol for type I error, it can be seen that over­ all academic procrastination was related positively to affective barriers, comfort with the library, and mechanical barriers. Table 1 also presents the correlations be­ tween the two reasons for procrastination subscales (fear of failure and task aversiveness) and the five dimensions of library anxiety. Again, using the Bonferroni adjustment, it can be seen that (1) fear of failure was related positively to affective barriers and comfort with the library and (2) task aversiveness was related positively to affective barriers and knowledge of the library. The strength of the relationship be­ tween the two sets of variables was as­ sessed by examining the magnitude of the canonical correlation coefficients. These coefficients indicate the degree of relation­ ship between the weighted procrastina­ tion variables and the weighted library anxiety variables. In addition, the signifi­ cance of the canonical roots was tested via the F-statistic based on Radhakrishna C. Rao’s approximation.55 The canonical analysis revealed that both canonical correlations combined were statistically significant (F [10, 256] = 3.45, p < .05). However, when the first canonical root was excluded, the remain­ ing canonical root was not statistically significant, suggesting that the first ca­ nonical function was statistically signifi­ cant, but the second canonical root was not statistically significant. However, be­ cause the calculated probabilities are sen­ sitive to sample size, particular attention should be paid to the educational (practi­ cal) significance of the obtained results.56 The educational significance of canonical correlations typically are assessed by ex­ amining their size. The canonical corre­ lation indicates how much variance the sets of weighted original variables share with each other. 57-60 In the present study, the first canonical correlation (R c1 = .42) TABLE 1 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations of Procrastination Measures and the Library Anxiety Dimensions Procrastination Measures Library Overall Anxiety Academic Fear of Task Dimensions Procrastination Failure Aversiveness Barriers with staff .19 .20 .03 Affective barriers .24' .39' .22' Comfort with the library .25' .23' .10 Knowledge of the library .09 .16 .22' Mechanical barriers .24' .09 .04 'Statistical significance after Bonferroni adjustment http:results.56 http:approximation.55 http:inclusive.54 http:belongs.53 50 College & Research Libraries January 2000 TABLE 2 Canonical Solution for First Function Measure Standardized Coefficient Structure Coefficient Structure2 (%) Library An:iety Dimension: Barriers witi staff Affective barriers Comfort with the library Knhwledgefhfftheflibrary Mechanical barriers -0.305' 1.122' -0.044 f0.261 -0.165 .411' .938' .533' .503' .215 16.9 88.0 28.4 25.3 4.6 Reasonf orfProcrastinationfDimension: Fear of failure Task aversiveness 0.792' 0.387' .933' .675' 87.0 45.6 'Loadings with large-effect sizes appeared to be moderately educationally significant, contributing 17.6 percent (R c1 2) to the shared variance. However, the sec­ ond canonical correlation (R c2 2 = .06) did not appear to be educationally significant. Consequently, only the first canonical cor­ relation was interpreted. Data pertaining to the first canonical root are presented in table 2. Table 2 pro­ vides both standardized function coeffi­ cients and structure coefficients. Exami­ nation of the standardized canonical func­ tion coefficients revealed that, using a cutoff correlation of 0.3 recommended by Zarrel V. Lambert and Richard M. Durand as an acceptable minimum loading value, two of the five library anxiety dimensions (barriers with staff and affective barriers) made an important contribution to the anxiety composite, with affective barriers being the major contributor.61 With respect to the reasons of procras­ tination set, both dimensions (fear of fail­ ure and task aversiveness) made an im­ portant contribution to the composite set. However, although the absolute magni­ tude of the standardized function coeffi­ cients may be relatively reliable in ascer­ taining the contribution of a variable to the composite, the numerical values of these coefficients are highly affected by the col- linearity of the variables in a given set.62 Due to the moderate to large statistically significant intercorrelations among the two reasons for procrastination factors (r = .36) and the library dimensions (the intercorrelations ranged from .26 to .79), the structure coefficients represented the primary statistics that were interpreted. The structure coefficients (table 2) re­ vealed that four of the five dimensions of library anxiety made important contribu­ tions to the first canonical variate. The square of the structure coefficient (table 2) indicated that affective barriers made an extremely large contribution, explaining 88 percent of the variance. Barriers with staff, comfort with the library, and knowledge of the library made moderate contribu­ tions, explaining 16.9 percent, 28.4 percent, and 25.3 percent of the variance, respec­ tively. With regard to the reasons for pro­ crastination cluster, both dimensions made noteworthy contributions, with fear of fail­ ure explaining 87 percent of the variance and task aversiveness 45.6 percent. Discussion The purpose of this study was to investi­ gate empirically the relationship between academic procrastination and five dimen­ sions of library anxiety. Findings revealed that, overall, academic procrastination is significantly positively related to affective barriers, comfort with the library, and mechanical barriers. In addition, academic http:contributor.61 I’ll Go to the Library Later 51 procrastination resulting from both fear of failure and task aversiveness appears to be related significantly to barriers with staff, affective barriers, comfort with the library, and knowledge of the library. These findings are consistent with those of Onwuegbuzie, who noted that many graduate students procrastinate while en­ gaged in the process of writing a research proposal.63 These results are also in accor­ dance with the bulk of the literature that has documented a relationship between academic procrastination and the gener­ alized and specific kinds of anxiety such as test anxiety, statistics anxiety, social anxi­ ety, and self-consciousness.64–68 Although there is strong evidence of a relationship between academic procrastination and library anxiety, it is unclear whether it is a causal relationship. The relationship between academic procrastination and library anxiety pro­ vides further evidence that procrastina­ tion is more than deficits in time manage­ ment and study skills but also includes cognitive-affective components.69,70 In fact, according to Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami, high procrastinators do not differ in their study behavior as much as they do on anxiety.71 Although there is strong evidence of a relationship between academic procras­ tination and library anxiety, it is unclear whether it is a causal relationship. That is, it is unclear whether academic procras­ tination is a cause of library anxiety or whether library anxiety promotes aca­ demic procrastination. Perhaps it is most likely that a bidirectional relationship ex­ ists between academic procrastination and library anxiety, with each affecting the other. If this is true, it would indicate that academic procrastination and library anxiety are intricately intertwined. For ex­ ample, it is possible that while engaged in the research process, high-procrastinat­ ing graduate students experience extreme elevations in library anxiety. Individuals who experience increases in levels of li­ brary anxiety are more likely to postpone using the library and performing library tasks. In any case, this cycle of procrasti­ nation and library anxiety is likely to con­ tinue until levels of both are maximized. Where for some students the procrastina­ tion component of the cycle is likely to stem from a fear of failure, for others the driving force is task aversiveness. Several studies have indicated that some academic procrastinators engage in perfec­ tionism in an effort to either produce a flaw­ less product (those with a tendency of self- perfectionism) or impress others by their efforts (those with a tendency of socially prescribed perfectionism).72–75 In addition, a relationship between perfectionism and library anxiety has been reported by Jiao and Onwuegbuzie.76 These findings, together with the findings from the current study, suggest that either the relationship between academic procrastination and library anxi­ ety is moderated by levels of perfectionism or the relationship between perfectionism and library anxiety is moderated by levels of academic procrastination. In any case, future research should investigate the inter­ play between procrastination, perfection­ ism, and library anxiety. The fact that no gender differences were found in the present study with respect to overall academic procrastination, fear of failure, task aversiveness, and all five di­ mensions of library anxiety and the fact that the overwhelming majority of previ­ ous research has documented that males and females report similar levels of aca­ demic procrastination suggest that the findings of the present study may be simi­ larly generalizable to both male and female graduate students.77–80 However, male stu­ dents have been found to report higher lev­ els of library anxiety than female stu­ dents.81 Thus, it is unclear how generaliz­ able the findings of the present study are across gender. If, indeed, males do experi­ ence higher levels of library anxiety than do females, it is possible that the relation­ ship between academic procrastination and library anxiety found in this study would have been even stronger if more males had been included in the sample. http:dents.81 http:Onwuegbuzie.76 http:anxiety.71 http:proposal.63 52 College & Research Libraries January 2000 The fact that academic procrastination was assessed via a self-report instrument, rather than based on actual behavior, is per­ haps another limitation of the study because it is possible that students may give socially desirable responses. However, according to Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami, self- reported procrastination has been validated against delay in taking self-paced quizzes, delay in submitting course assignments, delay in participation in psychology experi­ ments, and lower course grades.82,83 Not­ withstanding, future studies in this area should consider using behavioral measures of academic procrastination in addition to self-report instruments. In particular, quali­ tative studies are needed that investigate the role of academic procrastination through each of Kuhlthau’s six stages of the information search process because stu­ dents are likely to procrastinate at one or more of these stages.84,85 Moreover, future research should determine the stage at which procrastination is most prevalent and debilitative. Conclusion To the extent that the findings of the present study are replicable, several prac­ tical implications can be derived. Perhaps most importantly, the results suggest that whereas some graduate students may benefit from traditional interventions for procrastination such as time management and study skills, self-discipline and self- criticism, compliance-based and defiance- based paradoxical strategies, and the use of external contingencies, others may ben­ efit more from interventions that focus on anxiety management and reduction.86–94 Academic advisors and librarians should combine their efforts in helping to reduce library anxiety among graduate students by teaching them how to direct attention away from self-centered worries when they are engaged in the library search pro­ cess. By using such interventions, it is hoped that more graduate students will be positive about using the library, in gen­ eral, and about the information search process, in particular. Notes 1. Albert Ellis and William J. Knaus, Overcoming Procrastination ( New York: Institute for Rational Living, 1977). 2. Mary B. Hill, “A Survey of College Faculty and Student Procrastination,” College Student Journal 12, no.2 (fall 1978): 256–62. 3. Laura J. Solomon and Esther D. Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination: Frequency and Cognitive–Behavioral Correlates,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 31 (Oct. 1984): 503–9. 4. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “Academic Procrastination and Statistics Anxiety.” Article sub­ mitted for publication, (1999). 5. Joseph R. Ferrari, Johnson L. Judith, and William G. McCown, Procrastination and Task Avoidance: Theory, Research, and Treatment (New York: Plenum Publications, 1995). 6. Ibid. 7. Solomon and Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination.” 8. Gery Beswick, Esther D. Rothblum, and Leon L. Mann, “Psychological Antecedents of Student Procrastination,” Australian Psychologist 23, no. 2 (July 1988): 207–17. 9. Jeffrey L. Clark and Oliver W. Hill, “Academic Procrastination among African-American College Students,” Psychological Reports 75, no.2 (Oct. 1994): 931–36. 10. Clarry H. Lay and Stuart Silverman, “Trait Procrastination, Anxiety, and Dilatory Behav­ ior,” Personality and Individual Differences 21, no. 1 (July 1996): 61–67. 11. Esther D. Rothblum, Laura J. Solomon, and Janice Murakami, “Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Differences between High and Low Procrastinators,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 33 (Oct. 1986): 387–94. 12. Raymond N. Wolfe and Scott D. Johnson, “Personality as a Predictor of College Perfor­ mance,” Educational and Psychological Measurement 55, no. 2 (Apr. 1995): 177–85. 13. Solomon and Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination.” 14. Clark and Hill, “Academic Procrastination among African-American College Students.” 15. Solomon and Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination.” 16. Onwuegbuzie, “Academic Procrastination and Statistics Anxiety.” 17. Ibid. 18. Solomon and Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination.” I’ll Go to the Library Later 53 19. Onwuegbuzie, “Academic Procrastination and Statistics Anxiety.” 20. Ibid. 21. Constance A. Mellon, “Library Anxiety: A Grounded Theory and Its Development,” Col­ lege & Research Libraries 47 (Mar. 1986): 160–65. 22. ———, “Attitudes: The Forgotten Dimension in Library Instruction,” Library Journal 113 (Sept. 1, 1988): 137–39. 23. Carol C. Kuhlthau, “Developing a Model of the Library Search Process: Cognitive and Affective Aspects,” RQ 28 (winter 1988): 232–42. 24. ———, “Inside the Search Process: Information Seeking from the User ’s Perspective,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42 (June 1991): 361–71. 25. Kuhlthau, “Developing a Model of the Library Search Process.” 26. ———, “Inside the Search Process.” 27. Onwuegbuzie, “Academic Procrastination and Statistics Anxiety.” 28. Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami, “Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Differences between High and Low Procrastinators.” 29. Onwuegbuzie, “Academic Procrastination and Statistics.” 30. Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami, “Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Differences between High and Low Procrastinators.” 31. Solomon and Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination.” 32. Myles Hollander and Douglas A.Wolfe, Nonparametric Statistical Methods (New York: John Wiley, 1973). 33. Barbara R. Effert and Joseph R. Ferrari, “Decisional Procrastination: Examining Personal­ ity Correlates,” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 4, no. 1 (1989): 151–61. 34. Joseph R. Ferrari, “Reliability of Academic and Dispositional Measures of Procrastina­ tion,” Psychological Reports 64 (June 1989): 1057–58. 35. ———, “A Preference for a Favorable Public Impression by Procrastinators: Selecting among Cognitive and Social Tasks,” Personality and Individual Differences 12, no. 11 (1991): 1233–37. 36. ———, “Procrastinators and Project Creation: Choosing Easy, Nondiagnostic Items to Avoid Self-Relevant Information,” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6, no. 3 (Sept. 1991): 619–28. 37. Sharon L. Bostick, “The Development and Validation of the Library Anxiety Scale” (Ph.D. diss., Wayne State Univ., 1992). 38. Qun G. Jiao and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “Antecedents of Library Anxiety,” Library Quarterly 67, no. 4 (Oct. 1997): 372–89. 39. Solomon and Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination.” 40. Ibid. 41. Ibid. 42. Ibid. 43. Beswick, Rothblum, and Mann, “Psychological Antecedents of Student Procrastination.” 44. Solomon and Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination.” 45. Ferrari, “Reliability of Academic and Dispositional Measures of Procrastination.” 46. Norman Cliff and David J. Krus, “Interpretation of Canonical Analyses: Rotated vs. Unrotated Solutions,” Psychometrica 41 (Mar. 1976): 35–42. 47. Richard B. Darlington and Sharon Weinberg, “Canonical Variate Analysis and Related Techniques,” Review of Educational Research 43 (fall 1973): 433–54. 48. Bruce Thompson, “Canonical Correlation: Recent Extensions for Modelling Educational Processes” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso­ ciation, Boston, Apr. 7–11, 1980 [ERIC ED 199 269]). 49. ———, Canonical Correlation Analysis: Uses and Interpretations (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1984). 50. Thomas R. Knapp, “Canonical Correlation Analysis: A General Significance Parametric Significance-Testing System,” Psychological Bulletin 85, no. 2 (Mar. 1978): 410–16. 51. Bruce Thompson, “Canonical Correlation Analysis: An Explanation with Comments on Correct Practice” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Apr. 1988 [ERIC ED 295 957]). 52. Margery E. Arnold, “The Relationship of Canonical Correlation Analysis to Other Para­ metric Methods” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Jan. 1996 [ERIC ED 395 994]). 53. Thompson, “Canonical Correlation.” 54. Ibid. 55. Radhakrishna C. Rao, Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Research (New York: Wiley, 1952). 56. Thompson, “Canonical Correlation.” 57. Ibid. 58. Thompson, Canonical Correlation Analysis. 54 College & Research Libraries January 2000 59. ———, “Canonical Correlation Analysis.” 60. ———, “Variable Importance in Multiple Regression and Canonical Correlation” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, Apr. 1990 [ERIC ED 317 615]). 61. Zarrel V. Lambert and Richard M. Durand, “Some Precautions in Using Canonical Analy­ sis,” Journal of Market Research 7 (Apr. 1975): 468–75. 62. Thompson, “Variable Importance in Multiple Regression and Canonical Correlation.” 63. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “Writing a Research Proposal: The Role of Library Anxiety, Statis­ tics Anxiety, and Composition Anxiety,” Library & Information Science Research 19, no. 1 (1997): 5–33. 64. Joseph R. Ferrari, “Compulsive Procrastination: Some Self-Reported Characteristics,” Psy­ chological Reports 68, no. 2 (Apr. 1991): 455–58. 65. Norman A. Milgram, “Procrastination,” in Encyclopedia of Human Biology, vol. 6 (New York: Academic Pr., 1991), 149–55. 66. Onwuegbuzie, “Academic Procrastination and Statistics Anxiety.” 67. Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami, “Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Differences between High and Low Procrastinators.” 68. Solomon and Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination.” 69. Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami, “Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Differences between High and Low Procrastinators.” 70. Solomon and Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination.” 71. Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami, “Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Differences between High and Low Procrastinators.” 72. Joseph R. Ferrari, “Procrastinators and Perfect Behavior: An Exploratory Factor Analysis of Self-Presentation, Self-Awareness, and Self-Handicapping Components,” Journal of Research in Personality 26 (Mar. 1992): 75–84. 73. Onweugbuzie, “Writing a Research Proposal.” 74. Douglas D. Saddler and Laurie A. Sacks, “Multidimensional Perfectionism and Academic Procrastination: Relationships with Depression in University Students,” Psychological Reports 73 (Dec. 1993): 863–71. 75. Solomon and Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination.” 76. Qun G. Jiao and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “Perfectionism and Library Anxiety among Graduate Students,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 24 (Sept. 1998): 365–71. 77. Effert and Ferrari, “Decisional Procrastination.” 78. Ferrari, “Reliability of Academic and Dispositional Measures of Procrastination.” 79. Ferrari, “A Preference for a Favorable Public Impression by Procrastinators.” 80. Ferrari, “Procrastinators and Project Creation.” 81. Qun G. Jiao, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Art A. Lichtenstein, “Library Anxiety: Charac­ teristics of at-Risk College Students,” Library & Information Science Research 18 (spring 1996): 151–63. 82. Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami, “Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Differences between High and Low Procrastinators.” 83. Solomon and Rothblum, “Academic Procrastination.” 84. Esther D. Rothblum, Gery Beswick, and Leon L. Mann, “Psychological Antecedents of Stu­ dent Procrastination” (unpublished manuscript, Flinders Univ. of South Australia, Adelaide, 1984). 85. Kuhlthau, “Developing a Model of the Library Search Process.” 86. ———, “Inside the Search Process.” 87. Leon Green, “Minority Students’ Self-Control of Procrastination,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 29 (Nov. 1982): 636–44. 88. Steven C. Richards, “Behavior Modification of Studying through Study-Skills Advice and Self-Control Procedures,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 22, no. 5 (Sept. 1975): 431–36. 89. Harold A. Ziesar, Ted L. Rosenthal, and Glenn M. White, “Behavioral Self-Control in Treating Procrastination of Studying,” Psychological Reports 42, no. 1 (Feb. 1978): 56–69. 90. Gregg Mulry, Raymond Fleming, and Ann C. Gottschalk, “Psychological Reactance and Brief Treatment of Academic Procrastination,” Journal of College Student Psychotherapy 9, no. 1 (spring 1994): 41–56. 91. Thomas E. Dowd, Shari L. Hughes, Linda Brockbank, and Dale Halpain, “Compliance­ based and Defiance-based Intervention Strategies and Psychological Reactance in the Treatment of Free and Unfree Behavior,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 35, no. 4 (Oct. 1988): 370–76. 92. Thomas E. Dowd and Joseph S. Swoboda, “Paradoxical Interventions in Behavior Therapy,” Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 15, no. 3 (Sept. 1984): 229–34. 93. Michael Rohrbaugh, Howard Tennen, Samuel Press, and Larry White, “Compliance, Defi­ ance, and Therapeutic Paradox,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 51, no. 3 (July 1981): 454–67. 94. Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami, “Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Differences between High and Low Procrastinators.”