California State University, San Bernardino

CSUSB ScholarWorks

Theses Digitization Project John M. Pfau Library

2013

An examination of the Young schema model: Permissive

parenting, early maladaptive schemas, and procrastination
Wade Lee Kidner

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd-project

Part of the Cognitive Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation
Kidner, Wade Lee, "An examination of the Young schema model: Permissive parenting, early maladaptive
schemas, and procrastination" (2013). Theses Digitization Project. 4195.
https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd-project/4195

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the John M. Pfau Library at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Theses Digitization Project by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks.
For more information, please contact [email protected].
AN EXAMINATION OF THE YOUNG SCHEMA MODEL:

PERMISSIVE PARENTING, EARLY MALADAPTIVE

SCHEMAS, AND PROCRASTINATION

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University,

San Bernardino

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Psychology:

General—Experimental

by

Wade Lee Kidner

June 2013
 AN EXAMINATION OF THE YOUNG SCHEMA MODEL:

PERMISSIVE PARENTING, EARLY MALADAPTIVE

SCHEMAS, AND PROCRASTINATION

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University,

San Bernardino

by

Wade Lee Kidner

June 2013

Approved by:

OS/^//3
Date

Matt Riggs
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of the present study was to test specific

hypotheses based on the Young Schema Model (YSM). In this

model, poor parenting and traumatic events early in life

result in the formation of cognitive schemas that, in turn,

result in maladaptive behaviors in adulthood. The present

study tests the specific prediction that permissive

parenting will have an indirect effect to increase

procrastination by way of the intervening variables of

entitlement/grandiosity and insufficient self-control/self-

discipline cognitive schemas. Participants were 451

undergraduates (216 male, 228 female; 7 gender undisclosed;

44.3% Hispanic/Latino, 27.5% Caucasian, 7.8% African

American, 4.4% Asian American, 11.5% other, 4.4% ethnicity

undisclosed) who'completed measures of parenting style,

cognitive schemas, and procrastination. Study hypotheses

were tested using structural equation modeling. Consistent

with study hypotheses; permissive parenting significantly

predicted both entitlement/grandiosity and insufficient

self-control/self-discipline schemas, and had an indirect

effect on procrastination. Likewise, insufficient self-

control/self-discipline was a strong predictor of

procrastination, but the predicted relationship between

entitlement/grandiosity and procrastination was not

witnessed. The current study provides support for the YSM

that cognitive schemas play an-important role mediating the

relationship between events of early childhood and later

maladaptive behavior. This has important implications for

the development of clinical interventions that might need

to treat both the cognitive processes and the underlying

developmental issues that support these cognitive

vulnerabilities.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for the time,

effort, expertise, experience, mentorship, and patience of

my faculty advisor, Dr. Michael R. Lewin. It is a debt

that cannot be repaid. I can only promise to pass on what

I have received to others.

I would also like to thank the other members of my

thesis committee, Dr. David Chavez and Dr. Matt Riggs, for

their feedback and insight on this work. It was sincerely

appreciated.

Likewise, I would like to specifically thank Dr. John

P. Clapper, Dr. Matt Riggs, Dr. Donna M. Garcia, and Dr.

Luis M. Rivera. Each of you has contributed to my

understanding and appreciation of the wide and rich field

that is psychology.

There are too many others to name specifically that

have, nonetheless, enriched my time and training. I can

only hope that you know that I appreciate it deeply.

Thank you.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT............................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................... v

CHAPTER ONE: YOUNG SCHEMA MODEL

Introduction .................................. 1

Schema Domains .......................... 4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Procrastination................................ 10

Early Maladaptive Schemas .................... 19

Early Maladaptive Schemas and

Procrastination .......................... 28

Parenting Styles.......... •................... 35

Parenting Styles and Early Maladaptive

Schemas.................................. 36

Parenting Styles and Procrastination. ... 40

Purpose...................................... 43

Hypotheses.............................. 43

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Participants .................................. 45

Materials.................................... 46

Demographic Form........................ 46

Parental Authority Questionnaire ........ 46

Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form ... 48

Tuckman Procrastination Scale ............ 50

vi
 Procedure 51

Design and Analysis.......................... 52

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Data Screening and Initial Analysis .......... 53

Structural Equation Model .................... 58

Measurement Models ...................... 58

Model Predictions........................ 58

Model Assessment........................ 59

Hypothesized Effects .................... 60

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION .......................... 63

APPENDIX A: TABLES................................ 75

APPENDIX B: FIGURES................................ 78

APPENDIX C: INFORMEDCONSENT FORM .................... 81

APPENDIX D: IRB APPROVALLETTER..................... .8 3

REFERENCES........................................ 85

vii
 CHAPTER ONE

YOUNG SCHEMA MODEL

Introduction

Numerous models and treatment methodologies have been

developed to describe and alleviate psychological

disorders. Among them, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)

has distinguished itself through a strong, empirically-

supported record of treatment efficacy (Hofmann, Asnaani,

Vonk, Sawyer, & Fang, 2012). For'example, in a review of

meta-analytic studies, Hofmann et al. (2012) found that, of

11 meta-analyses comparing CBT to■alternative treatments

and control groups, 7 found that CBT had a better response

rate than the comparison treatments. Furthermore, only 1

of the 11 meta-analyses, a study by Leichensring and

Leibing (2003), found a lower response rate for CBT than

the comparison treatment. Interestingly, Leichensring and

Leibing (2003) specifically addressed efficacy in the

treatment of personality disorders and found that

psychodynamic therapy was more effective in treating

personality disorders than CBT. It was in response to this

perceived weakness of traditional CBT, a conclusion arrived

■at by Young and colleagues through clinical experience,

1
that the Young Schema Model (YSM; Young, 1990) was

developed. The YSM was developed specifically for the

purpose of conceptualizing cases of treatment-resistant

individuals with personality disorders, general

characterological issues, and comorbid Axis I disorders,

and to generate concomitant treatment interventions (Young,

Klosko, & Weishaar, 2003).

The YSM (Young, 1990) was designed to identify and

explain the underlying processes at work in those cases

that do not respond to CBT. It proposes that treatment

resistance is the result of the action of early'maladaptive

schemas (EMS; Young et al., 2003), which are systems of

memories, thoughts, feelings, and physical sensations that

constitute basic beliefs about oneself, others, the world,

and the relationships among them. EMS are thought to

generally form during early childhood as a result of toxic

parenting, which is poor parenting and family environments

(e.g., abusive, neglectful, over-permissive, cold, and

lonely families) that fail to meet core developmental

needs, and from traumatic events (e.g., death, or serious

injury or illness). Though formed during early childhood,

at which time they are believed to represent a relatively

accurate view of reality for the child, EMS persist into

2
adulthood when they may no longer be accurate and

constitute a cognitive vulnerability through distorted

interpretations of reality and result in maladaptive

behaviors (Young et al., 2003).

Young (1990) originally advanced 18 EMS, 15 of which

were measured with adequate reliability to be included in

the Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form (YSQ-SF; Young,

1998). The 18 EMS, with items from the YSQ-SF provided for

descriptive purposes where possible, are as follows:

abandonment/instability ("I find myself clinging to people.

I'm close to, because I'm afraid they'll leave me.");

mistrust/abuse ("I feel that I cannot let my guard down in

I
the presence of other people, or else they will

intentionally hurt me."); emotional deprivation ("Most of

the time, I haven't had someone to nurture me, share

him/herself with me, or care deeply about everything that

happens to me."); defectiveness/shame ("No man/woman could

love me once he/she saw my defects."); social

isolation/alienation ("I'm fundamentally different from

other people."); dependence/incompetence ("I do not feel

capable of getting by on my own in everyday life.");

vulnerability to harm or illness ("I can't seem to escape

the feeling that something bad is about to happen.");

3
enmeshment/undeveloped self ("It is very difficult for my

parent(s) and me to keep intimate details from each other,

without feeling betrayed or guilty."); failure ("Almost

nothing I do at work (or school) is as good as other people

can do."); entitlement/grandiosity ("I have a lot of

trouble accepting 'no' for an answer when I want something

from other people."); insufficient self-control/self-

discipline ("I can't seem to discipline myself to complete

routine or boring tasks."); subjugation ("I feel that I

have no choice but to give in to other people's wishes, or

I

else they will retaliate or reject me in some way."); self­

sacrifice ("I'm so busy doing for the people that I care

about, that I have little time for myself."); approval­

seek ing/ recognit ion-seeking, nega tivi ty/pessimism,

emotional inhibition ("I .am too self-conscious to show

positive feelings to others (e.g., affection, showing I

care)."); unrelenting standards/hypercriticalness ("I try

to do my best; I can't settle for 'good enough.'") and

punitiveness.

Schema Domains

EMS are organized into five higher-order domains which

are defined by the development needs which went unmet

during childhood and the characteristics of a typical

4
family from which the EMS are theorized to have developed

(Young et al., 2003).

Disconnection and Rejection. The disconnection and

rejection domain is associated with an unmet need for

"secure attachments to others (include[ing] safety,

stability, nurturance, and acceptance" (Young et al., 2003,

p. 10) stemming from a family that is "detached, cold,

rejecting, withholding, lonely, explosive, unpredictable,

or abusive" (p. 14). The EMS of abandonment/instability,

mistrust/abuse, emotional deprivation, defectiveness/shame,

and social isolation/alienation fall within the

disconnection and rejection domain.

I

Impaired Autonomy and Performance. The impaired

autonomy and performance domain is associated with unmet

needs to "autonomy, competence, and sense of identity"

(Young et al., 2003, p. 10) stemming from a family that is

"enmeshed, undermining of [the] child's confidence,

overprotective, or failing to reinforce [the] child" (p.

14). The EMS of dependence/incompetence, vulnerability to

harm or illness, enmeshment/underdeveloped self, and

failure fall within the impaired autonomy and performance

domain.

5
 Impaired Limits. The impaired limits domain is

associated with unmet needs for "realistic limits and self­

control" (Young et al., 2003, p. 10) stemming from a family

that is "characterized by permissiveness, overindulgence,

lack of direction, or a sense of superiority" (p. 15). The

EMS of entitlement/grandiosity and insufficient self-

control/self-discipline fall within the impaired limits

domain.

Other Directedness. The other-directedness domain is

associated with unmet need for "freedom to express valid

needs and emotions" (Young et al., 2003, p. 10) stemming

from a family that is "based on conditional acceptance...

[where] children must suppress important aspects of

themselves in order to gain love, attention, and approval"

(p. 16). The EMS of subjugation, self-sacrifice, and

approval-seeking/recognition-seeking fall within the other-

directedness domain.

Overvigilance and Inhibition. The overvigilance and

inhibition domain is associated with an unmet need for

"spontaneity and play" (Young et al., 2003, p. 10) stemming

from a family that is "grim, demanding, and sometimes

punitive" (p. 17). The EMS of negativity/ pessimism,

emotional inhibition, unrelenting standards/

6
hypercriticalness, and punitiveness fall within the

overvigilance and inhibition domain.

According to the YSM, when an EMS has developed in an

individual, experiences in daily life can activate the EMS,

resulting in anxiety and/or fear and consequent maladaptive

behavior, or coping responses, to deal with their anxiety

or fear (Young et al., 2003). For example, an opportunity

for a close relationship might produce anxiety or fear by

activating a mistrust/abuse schema. While there are

innumerable specific coping responses, Young et al. (2003)

propose that coping responses fall into three categories,

or coping styles: Avoidance, in which the individual

attempts to avoid the threatening situation;

overcompensation, in which the individual fights against

the EMS by acting in a way opposite to the EMS

interpretation; and surrender, in which the individual

neither avoids nor fights back, but accepts the EMS

interpretation of the situation, as inevitable and acts in a

way consistent with that interpretation and endures the

resulting negative emotions. For example, with a

mistrust/abuse EMS, the individual might avoid close

relationships entirely (avoidance), become the abuser in a

relationship (overcompensation), or enter into and endure

7
abusive relationships (surrender). The YSM predicts

specific coping responses for each coping style that are

typical for each EMS (Young et al., 2003).

Young et al. (2003) explained that the YSM was

developed out of clinical experience and for the primary

purpose of developing a therapeutic treatment to improve

the outcome of those that did not evidence a significant

benefit from traditional CBT. The need for empirical

research to test the assumptions and relationships

represented in the model was both recognized and welcomed

(Young et al., 2003). While research examining treatment

outcome and the reliability and validity of measures are

useful, a true evaluation of the model needs to test

specific predictions made by the YSM regarding the

relationship between family environment, EMS, and resultant

maladaptive coping response. The current study seeks to

add to the body of research through a circumscribed test of

the YSM model in relation to a typical family environment

and associated schemas that could lead to a coping response

appropriate to a university undergraduate sample,

procrastination. Procrastination1 is predicted as a coping

response particularly characteristic of five EMS in the

YSM: as an avoidance coping style to unrelenting

8
standards/hypercriticalness, dependence/incompetence,

failure, and entitlement/grandiosity; and as a surrender

coping style for insufficient self-control/self-discipline

(Young et al., 2003). From these EMS, the current study

will examine entitlement/grandiosity and insufficient self-

control/self-discipline because they have been found in

previous, unpublished, studies by the researcher to

demonstrate adequate variability and because both EMS are

part of the same domain in the YSM, impaired limits, and so

are predicted to have derived from the same family

environment, one characterized by■permissiveness (Young et

al., 2003). Consequently, the present study will examine

that portion of the YSM that predicts that a permissive

I

parenting style will be associated with the development of

entitlement/grandiosity and insufficient self-control/seif-

discipline schemas and a resultant increasing in

procrastination as a coping response.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Procrastination

Procrastination, though easily understood in common

speech, has been technically defined and operationalized in

a variety of ways in scientific research. Steel (2007), in

a meta-analysis of the etiology of procrastination,

reviewed definitions of procrastination used in research

and synthesized the following definition: "to voluntarily

delay an intended course of action despite expecting to be

worse off for the delay" (p. 66). Inherent in the

definition is a level of irrationality (Steel, 2010). An

alternative conceptualization separates procrastination

into three subtypes: avoidance, arousal, and decisional.

Avoidance procrastination, in which a person delays to

avoid anxiety or unpleasantness, and arousal

procrastination, in which a person delays in order to

experience a heightened state of incentive or performance

as a deadline approaches, are subtypes based on motivation

(Ferrari, 1992). Decisional procrastination, in contrasty

is a type based on the target of the procrastination, which

10
is a decision rather than some other behavior (Steel,

2010) .

The separation of procrastination into three subtypes,

however, has been challenged by Steel (2010) who, in a

meta-analysis of 156 studies on procrastination did not

find support for this division. Steel (2010) concluded

that arousal procrastination, as measured by the General

Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986), and avoidant

procrastination, as measured by the Adult Inventory of

Procrastination (McCown & Johnson, 1989), were too highly

correlated (.86 after attenuation to correct for

reliability) to be considered distinct constructs.

Decisional procrastination, as measured by the Decisional

Procrastination Scale (Mann, Burnett, Radford, & Ford,

1997), was considered somewhat more promising as a distinct

construct in terms of its correlation with measures

purported to assess avoidance (.57) and arousal (.71)

procrastination. ‘

In order to confirm the conclusions drawn from meta­

analysis, Steel (2010) collected a new sample of 4169

individuals (57.4% female, 42.6% male; mean age = 37.4

years; 78.7% Caucasian, 9.3% Asian, 3.3% Indian, 3.3%

Hispanic, 2.7% Black) that completed the Adult Inventory of

11
Procrastination (McCown & Johnson, 1989), the Decisional

Procrastination Scale (Mann et al., 1997), the General

Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986), the Irrational

Procrastination Scale (Steel, 2002), the Satisfaction with

Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), and

the Susceptibility to Temptation Scale (Steel, 2002). The

data was then randomly divided into two data sets, with the

first used in an exploratory factor analysis and the second

used in confirmatory factor analysis to test the resultant

factor solution. An oblique rotation was used since

factors were expected to be correlated. Using criteria-

based on examination of the scree plot and interpretability

of the factors, Steel (2010) suggested that a three factor

solution did best represented the data, but that the

factors were not associated with arousal, avoidant, and

decisional procrastination. An examination of the pattern

matrix found that items from all three procrastination

measures loaded well on the first factor which, apparently

before rotation, was found to account for 36% of the

variance, which corresponded to a general procrastination

factor. The second factor, increasing variance accounted

for in the solution by 7%, seemed to be related

specifically to running late for appointments, and the

12
third factor, adding an additional 6% to the variance

explained, seemed to be related to doing tasks (e.g., bill

paying, RSVPs, etc.) promptly. This factor analysis

provided.initial evidence that dividing procrastination

into subtypes of avoidant, arousal, and decisional is not

justified. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis was

used to test both the tripartite (arousal vs. avoidance vs.

decisional) model (Ferrari, 1992) and Steel's (2010) model

derived from the exploratory factor analysis. While

neither model showed a strong fit, per standards indicated

p

by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), Ferrari's model (\2(737) =

11889, CFI = .758, RMSEA - .085) ’showed a slightly poorer

fit than did Steel's (2010) solution (\2(732) = 11051, CFI :

.776, RMSEA = .082). Information regarding adjustments to

the'model to improve fit, if any, and details relating to

assumptions were not included. In consideration of these

findings, the current study follows the single, general

procrastination measure model for parsimony and in the

absence of sufficient evidence that a more complex model is

warranted.

While intending to do one thing, yet doing another,

would seem to be counter-intuitive as well as counter­

productive, procrastination is a common experience

13
(Ferrari, Diaz-Morales, O'Callaghan, Diaz, & Argumedo,

2007; Harriott & Ferrari, 1996). Harriott and Ferrari

(1996), for example, examined the prevalence of

procrastination in a sample of 211 individuals (122 female,

89 male; M age = 47.6 years, SD = 15.8) that attended one

of four invited talks on procrastination, each recruiting

from a different segment of the populace (viz., general

populace through public flyers and advertisements, business

people that were part of a professional organization, bank

employees, or university managers). For the latter three

groups, where the total number of individuals receiving the

invitation was known, it was calculated that over 75% chose

to take part in the study. Each participant completed a

measure for each of the three aspects of procrastination:

avoidance, arousal, and indecision. Overall, about 20% of

■those taking part identified themselves as chronic

procrastinators. While participants from the general

population scored the strongest for all three '■

procrastination types, Harriot and Ferrari found strong'

levels of■procrastination in all four groups, noting that

differences between groups -were unclear and could have been

an artifact of the differing means of recruitment. While

the representativeness of a sample that self-selected to

14
attend an invited talk on procrastination can well be

challenged, the high rate of attendance calculated from the

three professional groups where the number of persons

receiving an invitation was known partially answers this

criticism. This study provides evidence that

procrastination is a highly prevalent behavior in diverse

social and professional domains.

Ferrari et al. (2007) confirms a high prevalence for

procrastination internationally, as well. A sample of 1347

individuals (582 male, 765 female; M age =40.7, SD -

12.35, range 30 to 65 years) from Australia, Peru, Spain,

the United Kingdom, and the United States completed

measures of arousal and avoidant procrastination. Overall,

13.5% of men and women across countries were found to be

pure arousal procrastinators and 14.6% were pure avoidant

procrastinators. The methodology-used by Ferrari et al.

(2007) to obtain pure procrastination rates for arousal and

avoidant procrastination involved regressing each'type upon

the other and examining the residuals. Given the high

correlations found in this study between arousal and

avoidant procrastination (ranging from .664 to .754 between

countries), the procrastination rates reported by Ferrari

et al. (2007) would, in fact, strongly underestimate the

15
rate of overall procrastination by discounting the

covariance between these two purported subtypes.

Consequently, the already significant procrastination rates

reported by Ferrari et al. (2007) are particularly strong

evidence for the high prevalence of procrastination due to

the conservative nature of their statistical approach.

Higher rates of procrastination appear to be

associated with perception of task difficulty (Ferrari,

Mason, & Hammer, 2006). A sample of 120 college students

(71 women, 47 men, 2 declining to state; mean age = 20.5

years.) , most of whom (72%) were underclassmen, were

assessed as to their level of general procrastination using

the General Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986). A’week

later, participants took part in the second part of the

study, which was camouflaged as an unrelated study

utilizing a descriptive writing task. In this second part

of the study, the participants were asked to write for

three minutes each about a task that they had delayed and

about a task they had not delayed. Each participant was

asked to choose both tasks (delayed and non-delayed) from

their personal experience and with deadlines from one of

three randomly assigned time periods (past, present, or

future). After writing about each of the two tasks,

16
participants filled out a measure in which they rated the

task that they had described as to its difficulty, clarity,

enjoyableness, the amount of effort that was required, and

whether completion of the task would have had a positive

result in their life. Ferrari et al. (2006) found that

higher procrastination scores predicted a perception of

increased task difficulty, required effort, and positive

reward for completion, and of decreased clarity and

enjoyableness of past-deadline tasks in which the

participant had delayed. For present-deadline tasks,

however, increased procrastination only predicted

perception of decreased enjoyableness of delayed tasks.

Unexpectedly, procrastination did not predict these task

characteristics for future-deadline tasks or for non­

delayed tasks. This suggests that the association between

trait procrastination and task perception can be seen only

in those cases where procrastination behavior has or is

taking place. This suggests a link between beliefs about

the task and procrastination behavior. That these beliefs

about the task were not found to be associated with tasks

with deadlines in the future suggests a lack of awareness,

and perhaps a reflective or explanatory nature to the

beliefs in order for the person to explain their own

17
behavior. This can be seen as consistent with the YSM in

that the task would not activate an EMS until it was close

enough to feel threatening, at which time the EMS could

distort and change the perception of the task, resulting in

procrastination behavior to cope with the perceived threat.

Procrastination has also been linked to regret in

multiple life areas (Ferrari, Barnes, & Steel, 2009). A

sample of 2887 adults (1,776 women, 1,111 men; age range 25

to 80 years, M = 38.63, SD = 14.35, mode = 48) were

measured on avoidant procrastination, using the Adult

Inventory of Procrastination (McCown & Johnson, 1989),

arousal procrastination, using the General Procrastination

Scale (Lay, 1986), and a measure of regret in 12 life

domains, using the Life Domain Regret Inventory (Roese &

Summerville, 2005). Arousal, avoidant, and non­

procrastinators were identified and compared on the level

of regret in the assessed domains. It was found in the

domains of education, family, finance, friends, health,

both avoidant and arousal procrastinators, while not

differing from each other, expressed more regret than did

non-procrastinators . Further, arousal procrastinators

expressed more regret that non-procrastinators on community

service and leisure time. On parenting interactions,

18
arousal procrastinators expressed more regret than avoidant

procrastinators who, in turn, expressed more regret than

non-procrastinators. Overall, these results demonstrate

the harmfulness of procrastination, in terms of regret, and

accentuate the need to better understand its underlying

mechanisms.

Early Maladaptive Schemas

Early maladaptive schemas, as described in the

discussion of the Young Schema Model (Young et al., 2003)

in the introduction, are an important explanatory model

developed to explain maladaptive behavior, including

procrastination. As such, research as to the reliability,

validity, and usefulness of the concept is critical.

Since the YSM and the measure to assess the EMS

postulated by it derive from clinical experience, the first

empirical evidence of the existence of EMS comes in the

form of psychometric tests of the Young Schema

Questionnaire (YSQ; Young, 1990) used to measure them.

Schmidt, Joiner, Young, and Telch (1995), for example, gave

the YSQ to a sample of 1,129 undergraduates (423 male, 706

female) and subjected their responses to factor analysis

using a principle-components analysis (PCA) with an

19
orthogonal rotation to test whether the factor structure

predicted by the YSM would replicate. A factor solution

using a subsample of 575 of the participants was derived

based on three criteria: Eigenvalues greater than one, an

examination of the scree plot, and interpretability of the

factors. A 17-factor solution was found that included 15

of the 16 EMS that were proposed by Young (1990) and

included in the measure, as well as two unpredicted factors

that were more specific than those predicted by Young

(1990). These were named money worries, which borrowed

items from the hypothesized vulnerability to harm schema,

and loss of control fears, which was made up of items from

the emotional inhibition schema (Schmidt et al., 1995). The

proposed factor of social undesirability did not emerge at

all. The factor solution was cross-validated with the

remaining participants, again using 'PCA and an orthogonal

rotation, replicating 13 of the factors. The choice by

Schmidt et al. to use PCA and orthogonal rotation, while

deliberate and in line with the recommendations of Nunnally

(1978), has two drawbacks. As explained by Tabachnick and

Fidell (2013), PCA attempts to use all of the variance in

the data, rather than the covariance between measured

variables. Using the covariance, as is done in factor

20
analysis, excludes the unique and error variance from

consideration as is, therefore, more consistent with the

purpose of using questionnaire items to measure a latent

construct like an EMS. By using PCA instead, more variance

than is legitimately part of the proposed measure is left

in the model, generally inflating the estimates. Likewise,

Schmidt et al. (1995) chose an orthogonal rotation, which

assumes non-correlated factors, in an attempt to maximize

the differentiation between the factors and confirm the

YSM. Tabachnick and Fidell (2013’) recommend an oblique

rotation when factors are expected to correlate, as EMS

have consistently been found to do, in order to better

represent the nature of the data. The orthogonal rotation

that was used could also have artificially enhanced the

distinction between the factors. Nonetheless, Schmidt et

al. provides some supporting evidence for the overall YSM

model, though leaving room for additional analysis.

Subsequent to the non-clinical PCA, Schmidt et al.

conducted another PCA, using the same criteria, with a

sample of 187-clinical outpatients (52% female, 91%

Caucasian, M age = 36.8, SD = 10.9), with 61% having

received a diagnosis of an unspecified Axis I disorder and

55% receiving a diagnosis of an Axis II personality

21
disorder. The PCA with this clinical sample resulted in a

15 factor solution that matched Young's (1990) proposed

model, with the exception of the social undesirability

schema. Together, through supporting the reliability of

the YSQ, these analyses also provide some support that EMS

scales are, at least, measuring some existing constructs.

Schmidt et al. (1995) further supported the YSQ, and

therefore indirectly the YSM itself, by testing convergent

and discriminant validity. A sample of 181 undergraduates

(96 male, 85 female) were given the YSQ, a measure of

depression (Beck Depression Inventory; BDI; Beck, Rush,

Shaw, & Emery, 1979), a measure of cognitive vulnerability

to depression (Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale; DAS;

Weissman, 1979), a personality disorders measure

(Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire - Revised; PDQ-R;

Hyler & Reider, 1987), a measure of positive and negative

affect (Positive Affectivity/Negative Affectivity Scale;

PANAS; Watson & Clark, 1990), a self-esteem measure

(Rosenberg Self-Esteem Questionnaire; SEQ; Rosenberg,

1965), and a measure of psychological symptoms (Symptoms

Checklist-90 - Revised; SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1983).

Through correlation and regression analyses, Schmidt et al.

(1995) found evidence for construct validity for EMS

22
overall as they were associated 'with these related

constructs in the ways predicted by the model and for

discriminant validity with, for example, separate, and

theory consistent, EMS related to depression (dependency

and defectiveness) and to anxiety (vulnerability to harm

and inferiority/incompetence). This assessment of the

validity of the YSQ, in that the relationships found

between EMS and psychopathology are theory consistent, also

supports the theoretical model from which it was derived.

Welburn, Coristine, Dagg, Pontefract, and Jordan-

(2002), in establishing the reliability and validity of a

shortened measure of EMS, the Young Schema Questionnaire -

Short Version (YSQ-SF; Young, 1998), examined the ability

of EMS to predict three measures of distress (global

severity index, positive symptom total, and positive

symptom distress index) and nine symptoms (somatization,

obsessive-compulsiveness, interpersonal sensitivity,

depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid

ideation, and psychoticism), as measured by the Brief

Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1993). Participants

were 196 referrals (65 male, 131 female; age range 18 to

63, M age = 36.9, SD = 9.3) to a day treatment program at a

psychiatric hospital over a 2-year period that completed

23
all measures. Using a principle components analysis factor

analysis with and verimax rotation, Welburn et al. (2002)

were able to reproduce the 15-factor structure consistent

with the EMS predicted by the YSM, with few, and not too

severe, cross-loadings and adequate internal reliability

scores for the individual factors (.76 to .93). Together,

EMS predicted 52% of the variance in anxiety, 62% of the

variance in paranoia, and 47% of the variance in

depression. In each case, the specific EMS predicting

these constructs were consistent with the YSM model. While

Welburn et al.'s (2002) analyses 'are open to the same

I

criticism as those of Schmidt et 'al. (1995) in their use of

PCA and an orthogonal rotation, they still provide support,

i

not only for the adequate psychometric properties for the

YSQ, but also for the utility of the EMS construct in

predicting psychopathology.

EMS have been found useful in predicting maladaptive

behavior beyond establishment of measure validity, as well.

Tremblay and Dozois (2009), for example, examined whether

EMS predict trait aggression. Participants were 848 first-

year undergraduate university students (543 female, 304

male, 1 decline-to-state; age range 16 to 46, Mage = 18.5,

SD - 2.25; 71.2% White, 9.2% Chinese, 2.7% South Asian,

24
2.3% Korean, 2.0% Arab-West Asian, 12% multiracial or

other) . Participants completed instruments measuring 1.5

EMS (YSQ-SF; Young, 1998), trait aggression with four

aggression subscales - physical aggression, verbal

aggression, anger, and hostility (Aggression Questionnaire;

AQ; Buss & Perry, 1992), and depression (Center for

Epidemiological Studies - Depression Scale; CES-D; Radloff,

1977). It was found that, after controlling for gender and

depression, EMS overall accounted for an additional 25% of

the variance in total trait aggression, 18% of the variance

in physical aggression, 21% of th!e variance, in verbal

aggression, 27% of the variance in hostility, and 13% of

the variance in anger. Specifically, Tremblay and Dozois

(2009) found that the EMS of mist'rust/abuse,

entitlement/grandiosity, and insufficient self-

control/self-discipline were the strongest predictors of

trait aggression, which is consistent with YSM predicted

coping styles for these EMS (overcompensation- for

mistrust/abuse and surrender for entitlement/grandiosity

and insufficient self-control/self-discipline). Tremblay

and Dozois (2009) provide additional support for the

utility of EMS in predicting maladaptive behavior.

25
 In addition to examining EMS as a cognitive

vulnerability that predicts psychopathology, some research

has tested models in which EMS serve as mediators of the

effect of a distal source on psychopathology. For example,

Lumley and Harkness (2007) tested a model in which physical

and sexual abuse were hypothesized to have an indirect

effect on the level of anxious arousal by way of schemas

related to danger (viz., mistrust/abuse and vulnerability

to harm) and emotional abuse was hypothesized to have an

indirect effect on the level of anhedonic depression by way

of schemas related to loss and worthlessness (viz.,

emotional deprivation, dependency/incompetence,

defectiveness/shame, failure, and social isolation). To

test these- hypotheses, 76 adolescents (24 male, 52 female,

age range 13 to 19) that qualified for diagnosis of a non-

bipolar mood disorder according to the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American

Psychiatric Association, 1994) as assessed by diagnostic

interview and use of the Schedule for Affective Disorders

and Schizophrenia (K-SADS; Kaufman et al., 1997)'.

Participants were rated as to: Depression, using the Beck

Depression Inventory - Second Edition (BDI-II; Beck, Steer,

& Brown, 1996); anxiety and anhedonia, using 'the Mood and

26
Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire (MASQ; Watson & Clark,

unpublished); early maladaptive schemas, using the YSQ-SF

(Young, 1994); and for childhood abuse and maltreatment,

using, the Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse (CECA;

Bifulco, Brown, & Harris, 1994). Analysis revealed that

physical abuse had an indirect effect on the level of

anxious arousal by way of the vulnerability to harm EMS and

an indirect effect on anhedonic depression by way of

emotional deprivation. Emotion deprivation was found to

have an indirect effect on anxious arousal through

vulnerability to harm and an indirect effect on anhedonic

depression through the EMS of self-sacrifice and social

isolation. Sexual abuse did not predict anxiety or

depression in the current sample. While the results of

Lumley and Harkness (2007) departed somewhat from their

hypothesized model in terms of the specific EMS that would

be involved, where a relationship between childhood

maltreatment and later psychological difficulties was

observed, the relationship was found to be mediated by EMS.

This research, therefore, supports the YSM and suggests

that other relationships between negative childhood

experiences and later psychological and behavioral

27
difficulties might also be indirect through EMS, as the YSM

predicts.

Early Maladaptive Schemas and Procrastination

While EMS has been shown to be a valuable construct

for understanding and predicting psychopathology and

maladaptive behavior, the only study that has directly

measured both EMS and procrastination is a case study

(Flanagan, 1993) that examined the effectiveness of schema­

based therapy with a patient experiencing severe, chronic

procrastination. The patient in this case, Mr. G, is

reported to have struggled with procrastination and

indecision throughout his life of such magnitude as to

severely impinge upon his life-. His diagnosis included no

Axis I disorders, but did include an unspecified

characterological/personality disorder with obsessive-

compulsive, dependent, passive aggressive, and narcissistic

features. Prior to beginning therapy based on a cognitive-

behavioral approach with attention to identifying and

addressing early maladaptive schemas, Mr. G had undergone

three years of "intense analytic therapy" (p. 824), some

behavioral therapy, another two years of therapy from a

psychodynamic approach, and finally a few months of

supportive therapy. None of these approaches had provided

28
relief to Mr. G. In the schema-based approach detailed by

Flanagan (1993), after first establishing rapport,

explaining the process and responsibilities of patient and

therapist, and identifying Mr. G's automatic thoughts,

therapy went on to identify the beliefs underlying the

automatic thoughts and the early maladaptive schemas

underlying those beliefs.

As therapy progressed with Mr. G, EMS were identified

and became the key target to facilitate change (Flanagan,

1993). The EMS in this case did 'not correspond directly to

Young's (1990) EMS list as they were identified through

dialogue and connecting past and present experience, rather

than through a standardized survey, but held to the overall

concept of the YSM model. In Mr. G's case, two schemas

were identified. First, he believed that he was unlovable,

resulting in the belief that he needed to be perfect to

gain love. This schema description matches Young et al.'s

(2003) description of the defectiveness/shame and

unrelenting standards/hypercriticalness EMS. Second, a

"helpless child" schema (p. 826) was identified, which

matches Young et al.'s (2003) dependence/incompetence EMS.

The primary support for a YSM explanation for

procrastination from this case study is the effectiveness

29
of the therapeutic approach based on EMS that succeeded in

helping Mr.G where other approaches, including

analytic/psychodynamic approaches that delved into his

past, had failed. This case study provides indirect

support for the YSM model conceptualization of

procrastination and highlights the need for additional

research examining EMS and procrastination.

While procrastination research utilizing the schema

construct is not readily available, procrastination has

been linked to traits and conditions that Young et al.

(2003) uses in describing EMS. Of particular interest in

the present study, are characteristics of the insufficient

self-control/self-discipline and entitlement/grandiosity

EMS. For example, lack of self-control, the central

characteristic of its namesake EMS, is clearly linked with

procrastination (Digdon & Howell, 2008). In a study

utilizing 308 college students (84 male, 224 female; age

range = 17 to 46, M = 21.5, SD = 3.88), self-control (Self

Control Scale; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004),

procrastination (TPS; Tuckman, 1991), and whether

participants functioned best in the morning or evening

(Morningness/Eveningness Questionnaire; MEQ; Horne &

Ostberg, 1976) were measured to determine whether

30
procrastination and self-control could predict morningness

vs. eveningness and so provide evidence that there is an

association between circadian rhythm and these behavioral

deficits. Important for the current study is the strong

negative correlation (-.62) that was found between self­

control and procrastination (Digdon & Howell, 2008). Given

this strong correlation, it seems possible that the

insufficient self-control/self-discipline EMS would also

have an important relationship with procrastination.

Dewitte and Schouwenburg (2002) provide further

indirect support for a potential 'connection between the

insufficient self-control/self-di'scipline EMS and

procrastination. Young et al. (2003) includes in the

description of this schema that it is characterized by

below average tolerance for frustration and resistance to

impulse. Dewitte and Schouwenburg (2002) found that

procrastination was a result of a poor ability to control

impulses and a general vulnerability to the draw of

alternate activities, rather than to any lack of

motivation. Participants in the study were 147 freshman

(130 female, 17 male; age range 17 to 42, M = 18.6, SD =

2.1) who completed Dutch translations of the following

scales: The Urgency, Perseverance, Premeditation, and

31
Sensation Seeking Scale (UPPS; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001);

the General Procrastination Scale (GPS; Lay, 1986); and,

the Berkeley Personality Profile (Harary & Donahue, 1994).

Supporting the relationship between insufficient self-

control/self-discipline and procrastination hypothesized in

the current study, procrastination was significantly

correlated with perseveration (-.72), premeditation (-.38),

and urgency (.39), which are aspects of impulsivity

measured by the UPPS. In contrast to the YSM (.Young,

1990), however, is the finding that, in a path analysis

with the personality variable, conscientiousness, placed as

a higher'order factor predicting these aspects of

I

impulsivity, only perseveration remained a significant

I
predictor of procrastination, which would suggest that the

insufficient self-control/self-discipline EMS might mediate

the effect of personality rather than the childhood

experiences predicted by Young (1990).

The proposed relationship between the entitlement/

grandiosity EMS (Young et al., 2003) and procrastination

can likewise be supported indirectly. Young et al. (2003)

proposed that procrastination is enacted as an avoidance

coping response to safeguard the individual against

challenges to their belief in their own superiority, a

32
belief itself sometimes taken in overcompensation for an

earlier, primary defectiveness/ shame schema. This view of

procrastination is consistent with Knaus (1973) who

indicated that procrastinators frequently have feelings of

grandiosity that they keep from being challenged by over­

committing and then blaming their procrastination on their

heavy workload.

While little research has been conducted directly

connecting grandiosity or narcissism' with procrastination,

narcissists have been shown to subconsciously avoid stimuli

that pose an ego threat (Horvath & Morf, 2009). Horvath

and Morf measured 64 participants (33 female, 31 male; age

range 17 to 39, median 22 years) as to their level of

narcissism, using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory

(NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979), self-esteem, using the

Rosenberg Scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965), and depression,

using the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelson,

Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961). In a second phase of the

experiment at a later date, participants took part in a

timed task in which they saw a series of 96 letter­

combinations, 48 of which formed a word in English, and 48

of which did not. Of the 48 words displayed, 16 were

neutral, 16 were generally negative, and the final 16 were

33
specifically words having to do with worthlessness. Words

and non-words were displayed very briefly (35 ms) with

letters displayed immediately before and after presentation

to assure that the displayed stimulus was only visible for

the requisite amount of time. Participants rated each

letter-combination as to whether or not it formed a word.

Between words a blank screen was displayed for either 90 ms

or 1940 ms, depending on condition. The study hypothesis

was confirmed that, those high in narcissism would rate

words related to worthlessness faster than would those low

in narcissism when the time between stimuli was short,

consistent with an activated hypervigilance in reaction to

the threatening words, but would rate words related to

worthlessness slower than would low narcissism participants

when the delay between words was .longer, consistent with a

repression/avoidance response having been activated.

Overall, this study is consistent with the expectation that

narcissists will respond with an avoidance strategy under

circumstances which threaten their self-image, if

unconsciously. Procrastination as well, therefore, might

be enacted unconsciously by those high in narcissism, and

narcissism like qualities, when their sense of superiority

is threatened by a difficult task.

34
 Parenting Styles

Research as to the nature and effects of different

forms of parenting is extensive, but two major,

complimentary systems dominate the literature, parenting

styles (Baumrind, 1971), which describe the manner in which

the parents treat the child and present themselves, and

attachment (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970), which describe the

character of the parent-child relationship and subsequent

effect on child behavior and relationships.

From an observation of 146 preschool children and

their families, Baumrind (1971) was able to categorize the

parenting behavior that she witnessed into three basic

parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and

I

permissive). Authoritarian parenting is characterized by a

high demand for obedience and respect coupled with a low

show of warmth and responsiveness. Authoritative parenting

demonstrates demandingness and limits, but in the presence

of warmth., responsiveness, and mutual respect. And,

permissiveness parenting is characterized by low control

and few limits from the parents, often in the presence of

warmth and responsiveness, but sometimes in its absence and

characterized by neglect.

35
 Attachment styles, in contrast, characterize the

relationship between caregiver and child as being securely

attached, insecure - anxious/ambivalent, or insecure -

avoidant. These categories were developed after watching

the behavior of 56 Caucasian infants (age range 49 to 51

weeks) as their mothers left the child in a room and

returned, both with and without a stranger present and

interacting with the child. In the series of situations

experienced, a securely attached child was one who cried

when the mother left and sought comfort from the mother

upon her return. An insecure-anxious/ambivalent child

cried when the mother left, and wanted contact when she

returned, but also pushed her away. An insecure-avoidant

child would not cry when the mother left or pay attention

to her when she returned.

Parenting Styles and Early Maladaptive Schemas

Parenting styles (Baumrind, 1971) and attachment

(Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth & Bell,‘1970) are important­

concepts for the YSM (Young, 1990) because the descriptions

of the families of origin for the five domains postulated

by the model use descriptors that are very close to the

earlier foundational concepts. Consequently, measures of

parenting style and related concepts are able to be used to

36
model the family environments proposed.by the YSM and

predict the .associated EMS.

Watson, Little, and Biderman, (1992), for example,

examined the ability of parenting styles (Baumrind, 1971)

to predict narcissism. A sample of 324 undergraduates (125

male, 199 female; mean age 19.6 years) completed measures

assessing the development of life objectives and

grandiosity (Goal Instability and Grandiosity Scales;

Robbins & Patton, 1985), narcissism (Narcissistic

Personality Inventory; Raskin & Hall, 1981), parenting

styles for each parent (Parental Authority Questionnaire;

Buri, 1989), and depression and anxiety (Depression and

Anxiety Scales; Costello & Comrey, 1967). Through

examination of correlations and by a principle component

analysis with all of the items from all of the measures

together, Watson et al. concluded that permissive parenting

was positively associated with grandiosity; authoritarian

parenting was positively associated with goal instability,

anxiety, and depression; and authoritative parenting was

negatively associated with narcissism. Watson et al.

(1992) , therefore, supports the hypothesized'

*- relationship

between permissive parenting and the entitlement/

grandiosity EMS derived from the YSM.

37
 Harris and Curtain (2002) also supports the YSM's

prediction that parenting experiences will predict EMS,

and, further, that EMS mediate the relationship between

negative childhood experiences and later psychopathology.

A sample of 194 undergraduates (.59.8% female, age range =

18-38, mean age = 19.3, SD = 2.21) were given measures

assessing their perception of parental care and

overprotection (Parental Bonding Instrument; PBI; Parker,

Tupling, & Brown, 1979), depression (BDI-II, Beck et al.,

1995), and the 12 EMS proposed by Young (1990) that were

reliably replicated with a non-clinical sample by Schmidt

et al. (1995) with an appropriately shortened version of

the YSQ (Young, 1990). Harris and Curtin (2002) found

that, together, lower parental care and higher amounts of

overprotection were associated with increased depression,

accounting for 14.4% of the variance. This relationship

was found to be partially mediated by the EMS of

defectiveness/shame, insufficient self-control, and

vulnerability to harm. This is further support for the

relationship between parenting and EMS posited by the YSM

and for the need to assess EMS as potential mediators

between parenting and maladaptive behaviors (Young et al.,

2003).

38
 Additional partial support for the YSM proposed

relationship between parenting and EMS formation can be

found in Sheffield, Waller, Emanuelli, Murray, and Meyer

(2005) to establish the psychometric properties of the

Young Parenting Inventory - Revised (YPI-R; Young, 1999),

which was devised specifically to assess the parenting and

family environments proposed in the YSM (Young, 1990) to

potentially result in the formation of EMS. A sample of

422 undergraduate and graduate university students (353

female, 68 male, 1 decline to state; age range 18 to 61, M

=24.5, SD = 7.9) completed the YPI-R and a subset of 160

of those also completed the YSQ-SF (Young, 1998) in order

to test the construct validity of the YPI-R. The YPI-R was

designed so as to have 17 subscales, each designed to match

a specific EMS advanced by the YSM and assess’whether the

family environment suitable for that EMS to develop was

perceived by the test-taker. Initial factor analysis of

the YPI resulted in Sheffield et al. reducing the measure

to nine factors based on the criteria of Eigenvalues

greater than 1, the interpretability of the factors, and

item factor loadings greater than .40. Overall, the

revised measure obtained adequate reliability and construct

validity, though departing from the YSM in some

39
particulars. Important for the present study, however, is

that all EMS, with the exception of self-sacrifice, were

predicted by parenting scales, lending general support to

this aspect of the YSM.

Parenting Styles and Procrastination

Finally, a small number of studies have examined the

relationship between parenting style and procrastination

directly. Pychyl, Coplan, and Reid (2002) examined the

relationships among gender, maternal and paternal parenting

style (PAQ; Buri, 1991), global self-worth (Self-Perception

Profile for Adolescents; Harter, 1988), and procrastination

(General Procrastination Scale; Lay, 1986). A sample of

105 middle-school and high-school students (60 female, 45

male; age range 13 to 15 years, M - 13. 65, SD = 0. 73)

participated in the study. Initial examination of gender

differences in reports of parenting style found the girls

were significantly more likely to report each of their

parents as more authoritative than did boys. Of interest

to the current study, and in conflict with the predictions

of the YSM to be tested, Pychyl et al. found no significant

relationship between permissive parenting and

procrastination for either maternal or paternal parenting

style. With respect to maternal parenting style,

40
authoritative parenting was found to be a negative

predictor of procrastination, and to have no interaction

with gender, and authoritarian maternal parenting was not

related to procrastination at all. Paternal authoritative

parenting’also significantly predicted procrastination, but

also interacted with participant gender. Breaking this

finding down, Pychyl et al. found that paternal

authoritative parenting has a negative relationship with

procrastination for girls, but was not a significant

predictor of procrastination for boys. Paternal

authoritarian parenting was found to be a positive

predictor of procrastination, with no gender interaction.

While Pychyl et al. (2002) demonstrated a relationship

between parenting and procrastination, it was not the

prediction made by the YSM. In fact, this study undermines

confidence in this prediction. However, additional

research might reveal an indirect relationship between

permissive parenting and procrastination that was not'

readily visible in Pychyl et al. An examination of the

relationship between global self-worth and procrastination

found that there, was no significant relationship for males,

but that there was a significant negative relationship

between self-worth and procrastination for females. Pychyl

41
et al., suggests that both parental and participant gender

could, be important moderators in any of the parenting to

schema relationships, a possibility that is not accounted

for in the YSM.

Ferrari and Olivette (1994) also examined the

relationship between parental authority and dysfunctional

procrastination utilizing a sample of 84 female

undergraduates (mean age = 19.1)‘who were enrolled in a

developmental psychology course. Participants completed

the Decisional Procrastination Scale (Mann, 1982), the

Adult Inventory of Procrastination (McCown & Johnson,

1989), the Anger Expression Scale (Speilber.ger et al.,

1985) , and the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri,

I

1991). Paternal authoritarian parenting demonstrated a

medium-sized effect in predicting both decisional and

avoidant procrastination. No other parenting style by

either parent was found to predict procrastination.

Overall, Ferrari and Olivette (1994) further emphasize the

importance of parenting style, but also suggest that the

predictions of the YSM need to be tested and, if necessary,

adjusted to account for additional variables of importance.

42
 Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to test the Young

Schema Model (Young, 1990) by modeling relationships from

toxic parenting and family environment to EMS formation and

resultant coping response using variables from the YSM that

are appropriate for a university sample. Specifically, the

present study sought to test the predicted relationship

between permissive parenting, the EMS of insufficient self­

control/ self-discipline and entitlement/grandiosity, and

procrastination.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were advanced:

(1) Permissive parenting would be a positive

predictor of the entitlement/grandiosity EMS.

(2) Permissive parenting would be a positive

predictor of the insufficient self-control/self-

discipline EMS.

(3) The entitlement/grandiosity EMS would be a

positive predictor of procrastination.

(4) The insufficient self-control/self-discipline EMS

■would be a positive predictor of procrastination.

(5) Permissive parenting would have a significant,

positive indirect effect on procrastination

43
 through the insufficient self-control/self-

discipline- EMS and the entitlement/grandiosity

EMS (see Figure 1).

Post hoc analysis was conducted in order to assess

whether parent and participant gender are important

variables in the proposed model.

44
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were 451 undergraduates (216 male, 228

female, 7 gender undisclosed; 44.3% Hispanic/Latino, 27.5%

Caucasian, 7.8% African American, 4.4% Asian American,

11.5% other, 4.4% ethnicity undisclosed). Participants ■

were recruited from California State University, San

Bernardino through the SONA Experiment Management System, a

software system designed to organize participation in

academic research studies, as part of a larger study on

parenting style, attachment, schemas, and procrastination.

Participation was voluntary and participants were free to

withdraw at any time or decline to answer any question. No

additional incentive was given beyond the extra credit in

psychology courses that was granted for the original study.

An approximate gender balance was obtained for this sample

through selective recruiting by gender. Specifically, the

gender balance of the sample was monitored throughout an

initial period of open recruitment. Once enough

participants from one gender, in this case female, had

taken part in the study to constitute half of the desired

45
sample size, only participants of the opposite gender, in

this case male, were recruited.

Materials

Demographic Form

A researcher-created survey that asked for information

as to participant age, gender, ethnicity, whether the

participant was currently receiving treatment for a

depressive disorder (a variable not used in the present

study which was collected for possible use in the larger

model for which the data was originally collected), and a

self-report of whether participants had provided responses

which, at the time of answering the questions, were their

best effort to respond accurately.

Parental Authority Questionnaire

(PAQ; Buri, 1991)

The PAQ is a 30-item questionnaire that measures

parenting style through participant ratings of statements

on a 5-point Likert-style scale from 1 {strongly disagree)

to 5 {strongly agree). Following Baumrind's (1971)

conceptualization of parental authority, the PAQ assesses

the following three parenting styles with 10 statements

each: Authoritarian (e.g., Even if her children didn't

46
 agree with her, my mother felt that it was for our own good

if we were forced to conform to what she thought was

right), authoritative (e.g., As I was growing up, once

family policy had been established, my mother discussed the

reasoning behind the policy with the children of the

family), and permissive (e.g., While I was growing up, my

mother felt that in a well-run home the children should

have their way in the family as often as the parents do).

Two versions of this questionnaire will be utilized, one to

assess the mother's parenting style and one to assess the

father's parenting style, which vary only in terms of

r

gendered words (e.g., mother, father, he, she, etc.).

J Test-retest reliability (.77 to .92) and internal

reliability (Cronbach alpha .74 to .87) for the PAQ have

r

been found to be adequate for the six combinations of

parental authority style (permissive x authoritative x

authoritarian) by parent gender (mother x father) (Buri,

1.991) . Discriminant validity of the measure was evaluated

through correlating individual scale scores with one

another for each parent (Buri, 1991). Correlations were

found to support the theorized relationships, with

authoritarianism negatively correlated with both

permissiveness (-.38 and -.52) and authoritativeness (-.48

47
and -.52) for mother and father respectively.

Permissiveness and authoritative parenting styles were

found to not be significantly correlated (.07 and .12).

This is also consistent with theory and, therefore,

supports discriminant validity for these three constructs.

Criterion validity for the PAQ was assessed by comparing

the correlation between each of the three parenting styles

and a measure of parental nurturance, the Parental

Nurturance Scale (Buri, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988), to the

expected theoretical relationship. Criterion validity was

supported by theoretically consistent relationships for

I

both mothers and fathers between nurturance and

authoritarian (-.36 and -.53), permissiveness (.04 and

.13)', and authoritativeness (.56 and .86). Finally, Buri

(1991) found that the PAQ is sufficiently resistant to

response bias, as evidenced by non-significant correlations

(-.14 to .23) between each PAQ scale and the Marlowe-Crowne

Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).

Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form

YSQ-SF; Young, 1998)

The 75-item YSQ-SF was developed as a shorter version

of the 205-item, long version, of the Young Schema

Questionnaire (YSQ-LF; Young & Brown, 1990). The YSQ-SF

48
measures 15 of the EMS from the YSQ-LF utilizing the five

items for each EMS that loaded most strongly in factor

analysis in the original instrument (Schmidt et al., 1995).

One EMS that was included in the YSQ-LF,

negativity/pessimism, was excluded from the YSQ-SF because

it failed to replicate in factor analysis (Schmidt et al.,

1995), as were two other EMS originally advanced in the YSM

(Young, 1990) that had not been included in the YSQ-LF

(viz., approval seeking and punitiveness). Each EMS scale

in the YSQ-SF is assessed by participant self-ratings of

five statements on a 6-point Likert-style scale from 1

(completely untrue of me) to 6 (describes me perfectly).

Scoring of this measure has been conducted in two different

ways. While the scoring method recommended by Young et al.

(2003) and Schmidt et al. (1995) consists of scoring any

item rated 5 or 6 as a 1, or hit, and any item rated at 4

or below as a 0, or miss, the present study follows

research literature that maintains the 6-point scale

Calvete, Estevez, de Arroyabe, & Ruiz, 2005; Thimm, 2010,

2011; Tremblay & Dozois, 2009) to take advantage of the

full range of variability present in the data. This method

seems particularly appropriate for the instrument's use

with a non-clinical sample in which a dichotomy between

49
might be an issue of clinical import (5 or 6) and unlikely

to be clinically significant (1-4) is not as important as

assessing the construct as a continuous variable.

Consequently, scores on individual EMS items were summed to

produce scales ranging from 5 to 30, with a higher score

indicating that the EMS more accurately reflects the

individual's worldview. Domain level scores can also be

calculated from this measure by summing the scores for the

EMS that constitute each, but are not of interest in the

present study.

The SQ-SF demonstrates strong internal reliability

with Cronbach alpha coefficients for subscales ranging from

.76 to .93 (Welburn et al., 2.002), Additionally, a factor

structure for the SQ-SF was found that is similar to the

205-item measure and consonant with the EMS model,

demonstrating congruent validity (Lee, Taylor & Dunn,

1999). Construct validity for the SQ-SF has been supported

by high correlations with established measures of

depression and anxiety (Calvete et al., 2005; Glaser,

Campbell, Calhoun, Bates, & Petrocelli, 2002).

Tuckman Procrastination Scale (TPS; Tuckman, 1991)

The TPS is a 35-item measure assessing procrastination

through participant rating of statements on a 4-point

50
Likert-style scale from 1 (That's me for sure) to 4 (That's

not me for sure). Ratings of individual items are summed,

after reverse-scoring of 10 items, to produce a

procrastination score from 35 to 140, with low scores

indicating a greater tendency to procrastinate. Internal

reliability of the TPS has been found to be adequate with a

Cronbach alpha of .90 (Tuckman, 1991). Concurrent validity

was assessed through correlations between the TPS and self-

efficacy (-.47) through the General Self-Efficacy Test

(Scherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, &

Rogers, 1982) and a measure of self-regulated performance

(-.54), the Voluntary Homework-System (Tuckman, 1990), and

found to be adequate (Tuckman, 1991).

Procedure

Consent form, questionnaires, and debriefing form were

distributed online through Qualtrics survey software

(Qualtrics Labs Inc., 2013). After first giving consent,

questionnaires were presented in random order, with two

exceptions. First, mother and father versions of the PAQ

were presented consecutively, but in random order relative

to one another. And, second, the demographic questionnaire

was presented last in order to assure that no order effect

51
would occur due to priming of age, gender, ethnicity, etc.

Upon completion of the study, a debriefing form was

presented. A print option was made available for both the

consent and debriefing forms.

Design and Analysis

The current study utilized a correlational design.

Study hypotheses were examined by modeling four latent

constructs (permissive parenting, entitlement/grandiosity

schema (SQET), insufficient self-control/self-discipline

schema (SQIS), and procrastination) in a structural

equation model, with model fit assessed using Satorra-

Bentler chi-square, confirmatory fit index (CFI), and root

mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Adjustments to

the proposed model to increase the goodness-of-fit were

assessed through the Wald test, the Lagrange Multiplier

test, and assessment of the meaningfulness of the proposed

associations.

52
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Data screening and Initial Analysis

As a first level of data cleaning, the final question

in the study asked participants to confirm through an open-

ended, typed response that, at the time that questions were

answered, they had intended to provide an answer that

accurately represented an honest response to the questions.

This screening was undertaken in recognition that many

participants might have completed the study for extra

credit, but might not have taken the study itself

seriously. This question assured the participant that

their response would be handled confidentially and would be

used solely for the purposes of ensuring the integrity of

the data that would be analyzed. Any form of positive

affirmation of the data provided resulted in retention of

the data at this point, while negative responses, declining

to respond, or skipping the question resulted in the data

being excluded from further analysis. Overall, this

criterion resulted in the exclusion of 85 participants,

bringing the sample size from 536 to 451. Demographic

information for the full 536 participants was not provided

53
as the demographic information could not be trusted to be

accurate.

Data from the 451 participants that remained in the

dataset was subjected to a missing value analysis using

SPSS's MVA function. Individual questions from the

maternal and paternal versions of the PAQ permissive

parenting scale and the entitlement/grandiosity and

insufficient self-control/ self-discipline schemas were

entered into the MVA, with the scale score for the Tuckman

Procrastination Scale entered as the DV. The only

i

questions missing more than 5% of the data were from the

paternal PAQ permissive parenting scale, and all 10

questions from that scale were missing more than 5%. The

high rate of missing data for these questions was due to 35

participants that did not complete the paternal version of

the PAQ at all. If these cases were not considered, all

variables would have had lower than 5% missing values and

further analysis would have been unnecessary (Tabachnik &

Fide11, 2013). Any MVA which included these cases was

conducted, nonetheless, and patterns of missing data were

analyzed using Little's MCAR test. The missing data was

found to be missing at random (MAR). While there were

differences between those that answered and did not answer

54
the analyzed questions, x2(1502, AZ = 451) = 1654.13, p =

.003, these differences were.not found to be related to the

DV, procrastination. Cases with missing values could

therefore be deleted list-wise, or have their missing

values replaced without fear of introducing bias to into

the analysis due related to the pattern of missing data

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

Participants with missing values for 20% or less of

the items on each scale had the missing values replaced

with the individual mean for the scale in which the missing

value occurred for purposes of calculating scale scores.

This method takes advantage of the available knowledge,

concerning the participant, and has been found to be an

accurate method for replacing missing values (Shrive,

Stuart, Quan, & Ghali, 2006). Participants with missing

values on more than 20% of the items for any scale were not

included in subsequent analysis.

Data was also screened based on a completion time

criteria. Participants taking less than 20 minutes to

complete the study were excluded from analysis as not

having taken enough time to read and respond to the

questions accurately. As the median completion time for

the study was 47.7 minutes, a standard at less than half of

55
this time was considered conservative. An additional 14

cases (3.1%) were excluded based on completion time,

resulting in a sample size of 437. No data was excluded

based on participants having taken too long to complete the

study.

Prior to analysis as latent constructs in an SEM,

model, maternal and paternal permissive parenting,

entitlement/grandiosity and insufficient self-control/

self-discipline schemas, and procrastination were scored

normally as indicated by their respective measures.

Reliability of the questionnaire, measures was assessed

using the Cronbach's alpha criteria and found to be

adequate, ranging from .748 to .918. Independent samples

t-tests were conducted comparing scores on each measure by

gender. No significant difference between male and female

scores on maternal permissiveness, t(424) = -.22, p = .830,

or paternal permissiveness, t(398) - 1.69, p - .091, were

found. There was a significant difference in scores,

however, on the EMS of entitlement/ grandiosity, t(429) =

2.27, p = .023, and insufficient self-control/ self­

discipline. t(429) = 3.68, p < .001, and on procrastination,

t(430) = -3.16, p = .002. Males scored higher on

entitlement/grandiosity and insufficient self-control/self­

56
discipline and females scored higher on procrastination

(Cronbach alpha coefficients for study scales; as well as

means, and standard deviations for each measure for the

total sample, and separately by gender, can be found in

Table 1.

Correlations between scale scores were also calculated

and are reported in Table 2. Maternal permissive parenting

was found to have a significant positive correlation of

medium size with paternal permissive parenting, r(398) =

.392, p < .001, and of small size with entitlement/

grandiosity, r(430) = .141, p = .003. Paternal permissive

I

parenting was found to additionally have significant small­

sized correlations with both entitlement/ grandiosity,

r(402) = .206, p < .001, and insufficient self-control/

self-discipline, r(402) = .125, p = .012. Entitlement/

grandiosity was further found to have a positive, medium­

sized correlation with insufficient self-control/ self­

disciplines, r(436) = .330,' p < .001, and a small, positive

correlation with procrastination, r(436) = .132, p = .006.

Finally, there was a strong, positive correlation between

insufficient self-control/ self-discipline and

procrastination, r(436) = .616, p < .001. All other

correlations were not significant.

57
 Structural Equation Model

Measurement Models

The measurement models for the latent constructs in

the hypothesized SEM model were constructed as follows.

The permissive parenting latent construct was established

using four packets of five questions each. Two packets

were constructed from the maternal permissive parenting

scale, and two from the paternal permissive parenting

scale. These two scales were loaded onto the same latent

construct in order to approximate the YSM, which does not

distinguish between paternal and maternal parenting styles.

The items from the scales were randomly assigned to the

packets, with different item sets selected from the

maternal and paternal versions of the questionnaire. The

entitlement/grandiosity and insufficient self-control/

self-discipline constructs were each established by the

five items that make up the corresponding scales. And, the

procrastination construct was formed from four packets,

each made up of four randomly selected items from the TPS

scale.

Model Predictions

The hypothesized model (see Figure 1) predicted direct

relationships between permissive parenting and the schema

58
constructs of entitlement/grandiosity and insufficient

self-control/ self-discipline, and between each of these

schema constructs and procrastination. Indirect effects

between permissive parenting and procrastination were also

predicted through both schema constructs.

Model Assessment

Prior to running the SEM, the data was examined for

violations of assumptions and was found to be adequate in

terms of sample size, linearity, covariances, and the

absence of outliers and multicolinearity. Only cases with

complete data were included in the test of the model,

resulting in a sample size of 370. Consistent with the

recommendation of Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), for each

nonindependent latent construct, the path to one of its

measured variables was set to 1 to set the scale for the

latent construct. Likewise, the variance of the

independent latent construct, permissive parenting, was set

to 1. A normalized Mardia's coefficient of 14.50 was

found, which indicated a violation of multivariate

normality, so model fit was assessed using robust

estimations as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013).

59
 Modest initial support for the hypothesized model was

found, Satorra-Bentler \2 (131, N = 370) = 320.05, p < .001,

robust CFI = .917, RMSEA = .067.

The Wald test did not suggest that the deletion of any

path, but the Lagrange Multiplier test suggested four error

covariances to improve model fit. Since each suggested

error covariance was between measured variables that loaded

onto the same latent construct and were not theoretically

inconsistent with the model, they were added and the model

reassessed. Addition of these error covariances resulted

in a model demonstrating good fit with the data, \2 (127, N

= 370) = 206.6, robust CFI = .97, RMSEA = .04, and

explaining 51.7% of the variance in procrastination.

Hypothesized Effects

All tested paths within the measurement models were

significant. Standardized path coefficients are available

in Figure 2. Consistent with the hypothesized model,

permissive parenting was a significant, positive predictor,

of low to medium strength, for both entitlement/

grandiosity (p = .378, p < .05) and insufficient self-

control/self-discipline (p = .236, p < .05). Insufficient

self-control/self-discipline (p = .722, p < .05) was also

found to be a significant, and very strong, positive

60
predictor of procrastination, consistent with the

hypothesized model. The predicted direct relationship

between entitlement/ grandiosity and procrastination,

however, was not significant (0 = -.058, p > .05).

Finally, permissive parenting was found to have a

significant, though weak, indirect effect on

procrastination ((3 = .148, p < .05). The final model, with

standardized coefficients inserted, can be found in Figure

2.

Post hoc analyses were conducted to assess the

importance of participant gender to the hypothesized

relationships. Separate SEM models, identical to the

hypothesized model were run with only male and only female

participants. These gender segregated models produced the

same results as did the model run with the full sample,

with the exception that the two weakest paths in the

hypothesized model no longer reached significance with the

smaller sample size, although standardized coefficients

were similar. Since analyzing the data separately by

gender did not appear to shed additional light on the

model, the results of these analyses are not reported in

depth.

61
 A post hoc analysis was also conducted to assess

whether entering separate latent constructs into the model

for paternal and maternal permissive parenting would shed

greater light on the nature of the relationships between

the constructs. The single permissive parenting construct

was divided into two separate constructs, each associated

with five 2-item packets taken randomly from the

appropriate version of the permissive parenting scale of

the PAQ (Buri, 1991). As with the hypothesized model, each

of these two permissive parenting constructs was set to

predict each of the EMS constructs (entitlement/grandiosity

and insufficient self-control/self-discipline). This five

construct model was found to have very poor fit with the

data, Robust CFI = .697, RMSEA = .136. Consequently, no

further analysis was done with this model.

62
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to assess the

predictions of the Young Schema Model (Young, 1990) with

respect to specific cognitive and early childhood

predictors of a common maladaptive coping behavior,

procrastination. Specifically, the study hypothesized that

permissive parenting would positively predict the early

maladaptive schemas of entitlement/grandiosity and

insufficient self-control/self-discipline, which would

positively predict procrastination. Furthermore, an

indirect effect of permissive parenting on procrastination

was predicted. Overall, good support was found for the

hypothesized model. With the exception of the hypothesized

relationship between entitlement/grandiosity and

procrastination, all hypothesized relationships were found

to be significant.

These findings are consistent with the YSM (Young,

1990) which proposed that a permissive parenting

environment in early childhood leads to the formation of

the entitlement/grandiosity and insufficient self-

control/self-discipline EMS. While permissive parenting

63
was only a modest predictor of these cognitive constructs

in the present sample,-this simply suggests that other

variables are also important in affecting these maladaptive

and distorted ways of interpreting reality. The YSM

concept that the experiences of early childhood result in

cognitive vulnerabilities, in the form of early maladaptive

schemas (EMS), in predictable ways is an important insight.

The modest relationship between permissive parenting

and the entitlement/grandiosity EMS is consistent with

Watson, Little, and Biderman (1992) who found that

grandiosity, but not narcissism, was associated with

permissive parenting. Since the YSM conceptualizes

entitlement and grandiosity as aspects of a single EMS,

understood to be closely associated with narcissism (Young

et al., 2003), the modest association between permissive

parenting and entitlement/grandiosity EMS might be due to

the association only involving one aspect of the EMS.

Similarly, the finding of Harris and Curtin (2002)

that insufficient self-control/self-discipline mediated the

relationship from parental care and overprotection to

depression could also explain the modest relationship

between permissive parenting and insufficient self-

control/self-discipline found in the present study.

64
Succinctly,, the relationship appears to be there, but

perhaps more complicated than the YSM posits, with multiple

types of family environments (e.g., parental indifference

or overcontrol) leading to the same cognitive

vulnerability.

The finding that insufficient self-control/self-

discipline was a very strong predictor of procrastination

is consistent with the YSM that predicts procrastination as

a surrender coping response to that EMS (Young et al.,

2003) . That is, this schema, characterized by the belief

that one does not have the ability to endure frustration,

boredom, negative emotion, arid the like in order to do what

one believes should be done, predicts behavior consonant

with that- belief (viz., procrastination). Likewise, these

findings are consistent with Digdon and Howell (2008) who

also found that lack of self-control was strongly linked

with procrastination behavior. This is, of course, also

consistent with the simple logic that delaying action that

one believes will be in one's own best interest (e.g.,

studying) while simultaneously having an expectation of a

negative consequence for doing so (e.g., poor grades) would

at some point involve a failure to overcome the impulse and

65
do what one believes is in their best interest (i.e., study

anyway).

Alternatively; one could argue that the insufficient

self-control/self-discipline EMS, as measured by the YSQ in

particular, is merely an accurate description of the

procrastination behavior itself. Establishing causality

between EMS and behavior, which is most likely reciprocal

in any case, is beyond the scope of the current research.

The present study's contribution to understanding the role

of the insufficient self-control/self-discipline EMS in

procrastination, therefore, is limited, but one critical

conclusion is suggested. That permissive parenting, which

clearly is temporally antecedent to both EMS and behavior,

was found to have an indirect effect on procrastination

through insufficient self-control/self-discipline, suggest

that, at least in part, the EMS represents an induced

cognitive vulnerability that increases the likelihood of

procrastination, and is not a mere self-reflection. This,

then, constitutes a potentially important insight into the

roots of procrastination that can subsequently influence

selection of treatment approach, as will be discussed.

The finding that entitlement/grandiosity did not

predict procrastination in the present study is

66
inconsistent.with both the YSM (Young et al., 2003) and

previous research that has shown a link between avoidant

behavior and narcissism (Horvath & Morf, 2009). and between

procrastination and grandiosity (Knaus, 1973) . The

difference in results from previous research might be due

to the inclusion of insufficient self-control/self-

discipline in the current model. This latter construct was

such a strong predictor on its own that it might have

accounted for that aspect of entitlement/grandiosity that

would enact procrastination to avoid difficult and.

threatening situations. In other words, any increased

propensity to avoid threatening situations through

procrastination for those high in entitlement/grandiosity

might have been captured instead by the more direct

I
questions in the insufficient self-control/self-discipline

scale.

Of particular interest in the current study is the

indirect relationship between permissive parenting and

procrastination that is hypothesized by the YSM (Young et

al., 2003). While weak in and of itself, it plays an

important part in understanding' procrastination. The EMS

mediation of the relationship of parenting on subsequent

behavior supports the importance of including cognitive

67
schemas in any conceptual framework. In this way,•the

current study supports 'previous studies that have also

found EMS playing a mediational role in parenting and in

interpreting and responding.to perceived threat (e.g.,

Harris & Curtin, 2002; Lumley & Harkness, 2007).

The model supported by the present study is also in

conflict with Pychyl et al. (2002) whose findings, while

supporting the importance of parenting style in subsequent

procrastination, did not find a relationship between

permissive parenting, specifically, and this behavior.

Furthermore, the importance of the gender of the parent and

of the participant in the role of specific parenting styles

on procrastination behavior was not replicated. The

present study, in post hoc analysis, found no significant

difference in the model based on participant gender. When

post hoc analysis examined maternal and paternal permissive

parenting as separate constructs in the same SEM model, the

model failed to resolve at all. This disparity in findings

between the present study and Pychyl et al. (2002) might be

explained, however, by differences in the way permissive

parenting was conceptualized. By looking at the covariance

of maternal and paternal permissive parenting in a

structural equation model, permissive parenting in the

68
present study represented a family environment instead of

the parenting style of specific parents. It might,

therefore, be that a permissive family environment has an

indirect effect on procrastination, consistent with the

YSM, whereas permissive parenting by individual parents, as

in Pychyl et al., is not sufficient to observe this

relationship. Further study to examine this possibility is

needed.

Several limitations were inherent in the design of the

present study. First, the choice to use a single

procrastination measure, rather than measures different

types of procrastination, might have made some

relationships more difficult to distinguish. It is perhaps

logical that an avoidance style of procrastination would be

more directly related to the self-defensive purpose given

as an explanation for procrastination in the

entitlement/grandiosity EMS, while an arousal

procrastination style would be more closely related to

insufficient self-control/self-discipline (Young et al. ,

2003). A different•approach might shed more light on this

potential relationship.

Additionally, combining maternal and paternal

permissive parenting into the same construct, while it most

69
directly modeled a permissive parenting environment by

capturing the covariance of both parents' parenting styles,

does not allow for a deeper look at the differential

effects of permissive parenting when only practiced by one

parent or how it might interact with alternate parenting

styles in the same home. Also, by including only the

covariance of the permissive parenting between two parents,

single parent households were not examined. Future

research should examine this in its full complexity,

I

comparing single and dual parent' household and the

interaction of parenting styles in their impact on later

behavior.

The present study examined only a small portion of the

YSM predictions about the source of procrastination,

limiting itself to just those schemas related to a single

family of origin. This could have resulted in a distortion

of the true relationship between parenting, cognitive

schemas, and procrastination. Future research should

undertake a full model from each type of parenting, through

their associated schemas, and to the common maladaptive

behavior of procrastination to fully test the model and to

fully elucidate the multiple paths to this common behavior.

70
 Finally, the current study used a correlational design

and, so, inherited all of the limitations inherent in this

type of research. Future research using an experimental,

or quasi-experimental, design should be undertaken to

examine schema interaction and resultant maladaptive

behavior. The YSM posits that these maladaptive behaviors

are responses to perceived threat that is created or

magnified by the distorted interpretations of an EMS.

Future research, therefore, could further test this model

by utilizing a manipulation designed to differentially

activate specific schemas and examine the resulting

maladaptive behaviors. This might be particularly useful

in examining the proposed relationship between

entitlement/grandiosity and procrastination, for example,

because the maladaptive behavior is only expected to be

present under certain threatening circumstances and,

likewise,'can be a subconscious phenomenon (Horvath & Morf,

200.9) that does not yield easily to survey research.

The YSM was developed to explain the source of

treatment resistance for chronic, characterological,

maladaptive behaviors, like procrastination and many

others, in terms of cognitive vulnerabilities (i.e., EMS)

and their early childhood precursors (i.e., toxic

71
parenting) in order to generate effective treatment

interventions. The indirect relationship between

permissive parenting and procrastination through the

insufficient self-control/self-discipline EMS found in the

current study suggests that the condition might be most

effectively dealt with by addressing not only cognitive and

behavioral aspects of the behavior, as CBT does, but also

developmental aspects of the individual, as psychodynamic

approaches emphasize.

Schema-focused psychotherapy, as proposed by Young et

al. (2003), is a balance between these two approaches. It

includes identification of target behaviors, development of

specific goals, identifying and challenging automatic

I

thoughts, assigning homework, and so forth, as is

characteristic of CBT. It adds 'to this, however,

additional techniques to address the unmet developmental

needs that led to the formation of the schemas underlying

the maladaptive behaviors. Visualization and roleplaying,

for example, are recommended to activate relevant EMS

during therapy, at which time they are examined so that the

client can understand how the schemas developed and begin

to disassociate with them. Limited reparenting can- be used

in'order to address unmet core needs and strengthen new,

72
healthy schema through which the client can better

interpret and deal with life circumstances, emotional

distress, and the like.

In a non-clinical sample, however, as are the

participants in the present study, schema-focused therapy

to deal with procrastination or some other maladaptive

behavior might not be an option, even if it is

characterized, by the persistence that the YSM was developed

to address. Clinical professionals available through

campus resources may well not have the specialized training

recommended by Young et al. (2003), and financial resources

might not be available to pay for treatment elsewhere. In

such case, educators and advisors that are called on to

help the individual may still be able to employ general

strategies that help the person address their needs. By

exploring when in early life the current maladaptive

behavior might have been a reasonable option and

highlighting the difference between the client in their

early life as compared to the present, the requisite

distance between the actions and thoughts of the young self

and the older self can be fostered. In this way, the

thought patterns (i.e., schemas) that maintain the behavior

73
in the present can be undermined and alternative thought

patterns strengthened.

Essentially, YSM's contribution to treatment efficacy

is in bringing a balance to the conceptualization and

treatment of treatment resistant, and even ego syntonic,

psychopathology such that the source of distorted

cognitions is not overlooked while dealing with such things

as automatic thoughts, and the cognitive vulnerabilities

are not overlooked while treatment focuses on unresolved

developmental stages. Overall, the present study supports

the YSM model in its predictions regarding parenting and

cognition in relation to procrastination and underscores

the need for more research examining a full model of

psychopathology from parenting to adult behavior.

74
APPENDIX A
I

TABLES

75
Table 1

Reliability, means, and. standard deviations for each scale

by gender

Male Female Total

Scale ce M SD M SD M SD
PP-M .748 24.5 6.33 24.6 6.89 24.5 6.63
PP-F .770 24.9 6.83 23.7 7.09 24.3 6.96
SQET .773 15.1 5.54 1.3.9 5.26 14.5
* 5.42
SQIS .850 13.4 5.50. 11.5 5.23 *
12.4 5.42
Proc . 918 2.6 0.58 2.8 0.66 *
2.7 0.63

Note. PP-M = maternal permissive parenting scale; PP~F =

paternal permissive parenting scale; SQET = entitlement/

grandiosity schema; SQIS = insufficient self-control/ self­

discipline schema; Proc = procrastination. * indicates

significant differences in scale scores by gender at the p

< .05 level.

76
Table 2

Correlation Coefficients Between Study Variables

Scale 1 2 3 4 5
1. Maternal Permissiveness 1.00
2. Paternal Permissiveness *
.39 1.00
3. Entitlement/Grandiosity *
.15 *
.22 1.00
4. Insufficient Self-Control .07 *
.15 *
.34 1.00
5. Procrastination .00 .08 *
.13 .61
* 1.00

Note. * p < .05.

77
APPENDIX B

FIGURES

78
Figure 1. Hypothesized structural equation model. Solid

arrows indicate direct effects and dashed arrows indicate

indirect effects.

79
 -.557
......

Figure 2 Adjusted model with standardized path

coefficients. Solid arrows indicate direct effects and

dashed arrows indicate indirect effects. All paths are

significant unless otherwise specified. ns denotes non

significance. a denotes path that was not tested for

significance in the model.

80
 APPENDIX C

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

81
 CALIFORNIA STATE. UNIVERSITY
SAN BERNARDINO
College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Department of Psych ology

Consent Form Tor Relationships, Beliefs, anil Procrastination Study

You are invited to participate in a study designed to assess the effect of early
relationships and beliefs about oneself and others on procrastination. This study is being
conducted by Wade Kidner under the supervision of Dr. Michael Lewin, Associate Professor of
Psychology, This study has been approved by the Department of Psychology Institutional
Review Board Sub-Committec of the California Stale University, San Bernardino, and a copy of
the official Psychology IRB stamp of approval should appear on this consent form. The
university requires that you give your consent before participating in this study.
You will fill out n scries of questionnaires that will ask about your experiences,
relationships, and any procrastinating behavior. When you complete the questions, an
information statement will describe the study in more detail. Altogether your participation in this
study should only take about 30 minutes to complete.
This study involves no risks beyond those routinely encountered in daily life, nor nny
direct benefits to you us a participant. If you are a CSUSB student, you may receive 2 points of
extra credit in a selected Psychology class at your instructor’s discretion.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You are free to withdraw your
participation or refuse to answer any specific question at any time during the study, without
penalty or loss of extra credit points to which you are otherwise entitled.
SONA will generate a random identification number that will be appended to your survey
responses so that extra credit points can be awarded. Once data collection is complete and
credits arc awnrded, the id codes will be stripped from the data to maintain the anonymity of
your responses. The information collected in this study will be stored in a password protected
computer in a locked lab at CSUSB and only the researchers will he able to access this
information. Duta will only be reported in group format. The results from this study will be
included in Wade Kidncr’s MA thesis and submitted for publication to a scientific journal. All
data will be destroyed 5 years after publication.
It is very unlikely that any intense emotional discomfort will result from participation in
this study. However, if you would like to discuss any distress you may have experienced, do not
hesitate to contact the CSUSB Psychological.Counseling Center (537-5040). Additionally, if
you have any questions regarding this study, please feel free to contact Dr. Michael Lewin,
Associate Professor of Psychology ([email protected] or (909) 537-7303). You may also
contact the Human Subjects Office at California State University, Son Bernardino ((909) 537-
75 88) if you have any questions or concerns about this study. Results from this study will'be
available from Dr. Michael Lewin after June 2012.

I acknowledge that I have been informed of, and understand the true nature and purpose of this
study, and I freely consent to participate. I acknowledge that I am at least 18 years of age.

Please indicate your desire to participate by placing and “X” on the line below.

Participant’s X _______
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSm; SAN BERNARDINO
Date:____________ PSratOLDGYINymTTIONAL REVIEW BOARD SUB-COMMriTEE
APPROVED. 04 ; 06/ 12 VOID AFIWtMH 06/13
IgBtfH-iasP-Ql rHAnt

909.537,5570 ■ 909.537.7003 • htrpu'/www. psyehotogy.csusb.edu

5500 UNIVERSITY PARKWAY, SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92407-2393
The California Stale Unlvertliy • IjUrsfldJ • OrmruH Islands . Choo . Cwiilnguc? HiHs • Iasi Bay • Hluio ■ nujerton ■ HumbuWt - long BearJi • Los Angel«
Ma r It > a'e Academy ■ Monttsrrsy Lay ■ Northridge ■ I’cmona ■ Saciainento . San {lew jins • • Sari IrarKltco • Sari Josw . San Luis 0UI>t» • San Marcos - Sonoma . Stanhlaus

82
 APPENDIX D

IRB APPROVAL LETTER

83
 Human Subjects Review Board
Department of Psychology
California State University,
San Bernardino

PI: Lewin, Michael, & Kidner, Wade

From: Donna Garcia

Project Title: The Role of Attachment and Early Maladaptive Schemas on

Procrastination (Relationships, Beliefs, and Procrastination)

Project ID: H-12SP-01

Date: Friday, April 06, 2012

Disposition: Administrative Review

Your IRB proposal is approved. This approval is valid until 4/6/2013.

Good luck with your research!

Donna M. Garcia, Chair

Psychology IRB Sub-Committee

84
 REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment,

exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the

behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation.

Child Development, 41, 49-67.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and

statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).

Washington, DC: Author.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental

authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4(1,

Pt. 2), 1-103. doi:10.1037/h0030372

Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J. , Shaw, B. F. , & Emery, G. .(1979) .

Cognitive therapy- of depression. New York: Guilford

Press.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck

depression inventory, 2nd ed. Psychological

Corporation.

Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., &

Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring

depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-

571.

Bifulco, A., Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. 0. (19'94).

Childhood experience of care and abuse (CECA): A

85
 retrospective measure. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 35, 1419-1435.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1 Attachment.

New York: Basic Books.

Buri, J. R. (1989). Self-esteem and appraisals of parental

behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 33-49.

Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 110-119.

Buri, J. R., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988).

"Nothing I ever do seems to please my parents": Female

and male self-esteem as a function of mother's and

father's nurturance. St. Paul, MN: University of St.

Thomas, Psychology Department. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 285114).

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression

questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 63, 452-459.

Calvete, E., Estevez, A., de Arroyabe, E. L., & Ruiz, P.

(2005). The Schema Questionnaire - Short Form:

Structure and relationship with automatic thoughts and

symptoms of affective disorder. European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 90-95.

doi:10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.90

86
Costello, C. G., & Comrey, A. L. (1967). Scales for

measuring depression and anxiety. Journal of

Psychology, 66, 303-313.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social

desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal

of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Derogatis, L. R. (1983). SCL-90-R administration, scoring

and procedures manual-II for the (R) evised version and

other instruments of the psychopathology rating scale

series. Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.

Derogatis, L. R. (1993) . Brief Symptom Inventory' (BSI) :

Administration, scoring and procedures manual (3rd

ed.). Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.

Dewitte, S., & Schouwenburg, H. 'C. (2002). Procrastination,

temptations, and incentives: The struggle between the

present and the future in procrastinators and the

punctual. European Journal of Personality, 16, 469-

489. doi:10.1002/Per.461

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S.

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Digdon, N. L., & Howell, A. J. (2008). College students who

have an eveningness preference report lower self-

87
 control and greater procrastination. Chronobiology

International, 25, 1029-1046.

doi:10.1080/07420520802553671

Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Psychometric validation of two

procrastination inventories for adults: Arousal and

avoidance measures. Journal of Psychopathology and

Behavioral Assessment, 14, 97-110.

Ferrari, J. R., Barnes, K. L. , & Steel, P. (2009). Life

regrets by avoidant and arousal procrastinators: Why

put off today what you will regret tomorrow? Journal

2 of Individual Differences, 30, 163-168.

. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.30.3.163

Ferrari, J. R., Diaz-Morales, J. F. , O'Callaghan, J., Diaz,

K., & Argumedo, D. (2007). Frequent behavioral delay

tendencies by adults: International prevalence rates

of chronic procrastination. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 38, 458-464. doi:10.1177/0022022107302314

Ferrari, J. R., Mason, C. P., & Hammer, C. (2006).

Procrastination as a predictor of task perceptions:

Examining delayed and non-delayed tasks across varied

deadlines. Individual Differences Research, 4, 28-36.

Ferrari, J. R., & Olivette, M. J. (1994). Parental

authority and the development of female dysfunctional

88
 procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality,

28, 87-100.

Flanagan, C. M. (1993). Treating neurotic problems that do

not respond to psychodynamic therapies. Hospital and

Community Psychiatry, 44, 824-826.

Glaser, B. A., Campbell, L. F., Calhoun, G. B., Bates, J.

M., & Petrocelli, J. V. (2002). The early maladaptive

schema questionnaire - short form: A constructive

validity study. Measurement and Evaluation in

Counseling and Development, 35, 2-13.

Harary, K., & Donahue, E. (1994). Who do you think you are?

Explore your many-sided self with the Berkeley

Personality Profile, San Francisco: Harper.

Harriott, J., & Ferrari, J. R. (1996). Prevalence of

procrastination among samples of adults. Psychological

Reports, 78, 611-616.

Harris, A. E., & Curtin, L. (2002). Parental perceptions,

early maladaptive schemas, and depressive symptoms in

young adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 405-

416.

Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the self-perception profile

for adolescents, Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J. J., Sawyer, A. T.,

89
 St Fang, A. (2012) . The efficacy of cognitive

behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses.

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36, 427-440.

doi:10.1007/sl0608-012-9476-l

Horne, J. A., & Ostberg, 0. (1976). A self-assessment

questionnaire to determine morningness-eveningness in

human circadian rhythms. International Journal of

Chronobiology, 4, 97-110.

Horvath, S., & Morf, C. C. (2009). Narcissistic

defensiveness: Hypervigilance and avoidance of

worthlessness. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 45, 1252-1258. doi:10.1016/

j.jesp.2009.07.Oil

Hyler, S. E., & Reider, R. 0. (1987) . PDQ-R: Personality

Diagnostic Questionnaire - Revised. New York: New York

State Psychiatric Institute.

Kaufman, J., Birmaher, B., Brent, D., Rao, U., Flynn, C.,

Moreci, P. , ... & Ryan, N. (1997) . Schedule for

affective disorders and schizophrenia for school-aged

children-present and lifetime version (K-SADS-PL):

Initial reliability and validity data. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,

36, 80-988.

90
Knaus, W. J. (1973). Overcoming procrastination. Rational

Living, 8, 2-7.

Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on

procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality,

20, 474-495.

Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Dunn, J. (1999). Factor structure

of the schema questionnaire in a large sample.

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23, 441-451.

doi:10.1023/A:1018712202933

Leichensring, F., & Leibing, E. (2003). The effectiveness

of psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behavior

therapy in the treatment of personality disorders: A

meta-analysis. The American Journal of Psychiatry,

160, 1223-1232. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.7.1223

Lumley, M. N., & Harkness, K. L. (2007). Specificity in the

relations among childhood adversity, early maladaptive

schemas, and symptom profiles in adolescent

depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31, 639-

657. doi:10.1007/S10608-006-9100-3

Mann, L. (1982). Decision-Making Questionnaire. Unpublished

scale, Flinders University of South Australia,

Australia.

Mann, L., Burnett, P., Radford, M., & Ford, S. (1997) . The

91
 Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire: An instrument

for measuring patterns for coping with decisional

conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10,

1-19.

McCown, W., & Johnson, J. (1989). Differential arousal

gradients in chronic procrastination. Paper presented

at the American Psychological Association, Alexandria,

VA.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental

bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical

Psychology, 51, 1-10.

Pychyl, T. A., Coplan, R. J., & Reid, P. A. M. (2002).

Parenting and procrastination: Gender differences in

the relations between procrastination, parenting

style, and self-worth in early adolescence.

Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 271-285.

Qualtrics Labs Inc. (2013). Qualtrics Labs Inc. software,

Version 40170. Provo, UT. http://www.qualtrics.com

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report

depression scale for research in the general

population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1,■385-

92
 401.

Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1981). The narcissistic

personality inventory: Alternate form reliability and

further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 45, 159-162.

Robbins, S. B., & Patton, M. J. (1985). Self-psychology and

career development: Construction of the superiority

and goal instability scales. Journal of.Counseling

Psychology, 32, 221-231.

Roese, N. J., & Summerville, A. (2005). What we regret most

... and why? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

31, 1273-1285.

Rosenberg, S. (1965). Society and the adolescent self­

image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Scherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn,

S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-

efficacy scale: Construction and validation.

Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671.

Schmidt, N. B., Joiner, T. E., Young, J. E., & Telch, M. J.

(1995). The schema questionnaire: Investigation of

psychometric properties and the hierarchical structure

of a measure of maladaptive schemas. Cognitive Therapy

and Research, 19, 295-321. doi:10.1007/BF02230402

93
Sheffield, A., Waller, G., Emanuelli, F. , Murray, J., &

Meyer, C. (2005). Links between parenting and core

beliefs: Preliminary psychometric validation of the

Young Parenting Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and

Research, 29, 787-802. doi:10.1007/sl0608-005-4291-6

Shrive, F. M., Stuart, H., Quan, H., & Ghali, W. A. (2006).

Dealing with missing data in a multi-question

depression scale: a comparison of imputation

techniques. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6:57.

doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-57

Speilberger, C. D., Johnson, E. H., Russell, S. F., Crain,

R. J., Jacobs, G. A., & Worden, T. J. (1985). The

experience and expression of anger: Construction and

validation of the Anger Expression Scale. In M. A.

Chesney and R. H. Rosenman (Eds.) Anger and hostility

in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders. New York:

Hemisphere Publishing.

Steel, P. (2002). The measurement and nature of'

procrastination. Unpublished PhD, University of

Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-

analytic and theoretical review of quintessential

self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133,

94
 65-94. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65

Steel, P. (2010). Arousal, avoidant and decisional

procrastinators: Do they exist? Personality and

Individual Differences, 48, 926-934.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.025

Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using

multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson/Allyn &

Bacon.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004).

High self-control predicts good adjustment, less

pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success.

Journal of Personality, 72, 271-324.

Thimm, J. C. (2010). Personality and early maladaptive

schemas. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental

Psychiatry, 41, 373-380.

doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.03.009

Thimm, J. C. (2011). Incremental validity of maladaptive

schemas over five-factor model facets in the

prediction of personality disorder symptoms.

Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 777-782.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.030

Tremblay, P. F., & Dozois, D. J. (2009). Another

perspective on trait aggressiveness: Overlap with

95
 early maladaptive schemas. Personality and Individual

Differences, 46, 569-574.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.009

Tuckman, B. W. (1990). Groups versus goal-setting effects

on the self-regulated performance of students

differing in self-efficacy. Journal of Experimental

Education, 58, 291-298.

Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent

validity of the procrastination scale. Education and

Psychological Measurement, 51, 473-480.

doi:10.1177/0013164491512022

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1990). The Positive and

Negative Affect Schedule - Expanded Form. Unpublished

manuscript, Southern Methodist University.

Watson, P. J., Little, B., & Biderman, M. D. (1992).

Narcissism and parenting styles. Psychoanalytic

psychology, 9, 231-244.

Weissman, A. N. (1979). The Dysfunctional Attitude Scale: a

validation study. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 40, 1389-1390.

Welburn, K., Coristine, M., Dagg, P., Pontefract, A., &

Jordan, S. (2002). The schema questionnaire - short

form: Factor analysis and relationship between schemas

96
 and symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 519-

530. doi:10.1023/A:1016231902020

Whiteside^ S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor

model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of

personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and

Individual Differences, 30, 669-68 9.

Young, J. E. (1990). Cognitive therapy for personality

disorders. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resources Press.

Young, J. E. (1994). Cognitive therapy for personality

disorders, (rev. ed.) Sarasota, FL: Professional

Resources Press.

Young, J. E. (1998). Young schema questionnaire short form.

New York, NY: Cognitive Therapy Center.

Young, J. E. (1999). Cognitive therapy for personality

disorders. (3rd ed.) Sarasota, FL: Professional

Resources Press.

Young, J. E., & Brown, G. (1990). Young schema

questionnaire. New York: Cognitive Therapy Center of

New York.

Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003).

Schema therapy: A practitioner's guide. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

97