Procrastination affects many people and impacts overall effectiveness of individuals and organisations. While some studies have examined the correlates of procrastination in terms of impacts on well-being (including depression and anxiety) and on performance, few studies have examined procrastination as a dichotomous construct, with most seeing procrastination as unifactorial. One such study defining procrastination as dichotomous was that of Chu and Choi (2005). The current study examines how psychological well-being is related to the concepts of active procrastination and passive (traditional) procrastination. Active and passive procrastination are related insignificantly to each other (we are not dealing with one dimension); but what would be the relationships among psychological well-being, active procrastination and passive procrastination? The different forms of procrastination may have different relationships to well-being and research is scarce; and further, treatment processes for avoiding the negative effects of procrastination should be tailored to the different forms of procrastination. It was hypothesised that psychological well-being would be related positively to active procrastination and negatively to passive procrastination. To answer this question, 152 university students aged between 18 and 54, mean age of 23.3 (SD = 18) completed the Active Procrastination Scale, the Passive Procrastination Scale, and Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-Being. Standard multiple regression was used, linking psychological well-being, age, gender, active and passive procrastination. The findings show active and passive procrastination are in fact separate constructs and need to be treated differently. Being an active procrastinator can be a sign of healthy well-being.

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) include pervasive developmental disorders characterised by communication deficits, difficulty with social understanding, and repetitive behaviors. Few studies have compared the efficacy, affect, and coping strategies of siblings of typically developing children with siblings of children with ASD. Typically developing siblings are understood to be at an increased risk of externalising and internalising problems. The current study examined whether siblings of children with ASD differed in levels of efficacy, affect, and coping from siblings of typically developing children. Participants (156) included an Australia-wide sample involving 82 siblings of children with ASD, and 74 siblings of typically developing individuals. Participants completed The Self-Efficacy Scale for Children (assessing social, emotional, and academic efficacy), the Positive and Negative Affect Scales, the Brief COPE Scale, and other scales as part of the larger study. Results showed that ASD siblings reported lower scores on emotional efficacy, social efficacy, and positive affect, and higher negative affect, than did the comparison group siblings. However, no significant differences were found in coping strategies or academic efficacy between the ASD siblings and the typically developing siblings. Consistent with earlier research findings, there are perceived negative effects or risks from being a sibling of an individual with ASD, suggesting support interventions may assist the development of emotional and social efficacy and increased positive affect for these individuals.