Introduction
Procrastination, a common form of self-regulatory failure, is a well-known behavior in the society and describes the condition of intentionally putting things off despite being aware of negative consequences. This article gives an overview on procrastination from scientific perspectives, highlights causes and consequences, suggests theories proposed by scientists and describes coping strategies to overcome procrastination.
Prevalence of procrastination
20-25% of the society regularly procrastinate.[i] The most prevalent domain is academic related procrastination, for example for finishing papers and studying in general. 70% of university students classify themselves as procrastinators,[ii] and 50% admit that they procrastinate regularly.[iii] Therefore, procrastination is a frequently occurring state, however, can seriously impair the daily lives of affected ones depending on frequency and severity.
The frequency and severity of procrastination vary depending on the nature of task including task aversiveness. Tasks which are considered less important, stressful, require a lot of effort or take place in the distant future are suggested to increase risk of procrastination as people tend to avoid unpleasant emotions, even if the relieve is only short-term.[iv]
Definition of procrastination
Klingsieck’s definition of procrastination comprises seven factors:[v]
1. An overt (behavioral act=starting/completing an action) or covert act (decisional act=making choice within timeline) is delayed
2. The start or completion of this act is intended
3. The acts necessary of personal importance
4. The delay is voluntary and not imposed on oneself by external matters
5. The delay is unnecessary or irrational
6. The delay is achieved despite being aware of its potential negative consequences
7. The delay is accompanied by subjective discomfort or other negative consequences
Summarized, procrastination is an unnecessary, harmful and strategic delay of an action. Affected ones are aware of the negative consequences, but those are outweighed by the positive ones in the moment one decides to delay the action.
Psychological explanations on procrastination
People who suffer from high levels of perfectionism,[vi] neuroticism[vii] (emotional instability), decreased optimism[viii] and a low self-esteem[ix] are more likely to procrastinate . Additionally, character traits and identity aspects also influence the occurrence of procrastination[x]. This is illustrated by the phenomenon of self-handicapping, meaning avoiding certain tasks as a strategy to maintain one’s self-esteem because lack of time can be interpreted as a justification for failure.[xi] Furthermore, research has shown that the occurrence of procrastination also depends on the extent to which people can imagine themselves, or respectively the rewarding feeling of finishing a task, in the future.
In the scientific domain, there have been developed several theories to explain procrastination. The self-determination theory is based on three primary psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness.[xii] It suggests that when lacking, the likelihood of procrastination increases as the wellbeing decreases and the intrinsic motivation (motivation coming from oneself, regardless of any external influences such as praise) drops, resulting in a form of coping mechanism to avoid discomfort. The temporal motivation theory implies that depending on utility, people are more likely to procrastinate actions which they believe do not have a high value. The theory combines expectancy (probability to success), value (preferences towards specific tasks), impulsiveness (sensitivity towards short-term rewards) and delay (duration to get results).[xiii] The action control theory suggests that the probability of procrastination depends on the capability of self-regulation. This means that a lack of motivational control (boosts positive feelings, increases self-motivation) and emotion control (disengagement from negative states, improves resistance) increases risk of procrastination. Individuals who are action-oriented (less affected by stress and discomfort, ability to self-regulate emotions and thoughts) are less likely to procrastinate than people who are state-oriented (lacking self-regulation, tending to focus on emotional and mental stages instead of taking action) as they often lack motivational and emotional control as well.[xiv]
Maladaptive and adaptive coping strategies
Different strategies lead to different outcomes. People choose to cope differently depending on internal, but also external factors such as character traits, support and resources. This is indicated by a meta-analysis which resulted that procrastination was associated with maladaptive strategies such as self-blame, avoidance and disengagement instead of adaptive strategies such as action taking, asking for help and taking control.[xv] This suggests that procrastination can be seen as a solution for temporary comfort for people dealing with maladaptive approaches.
Depletion vulnerability, a state when stress is permanent and/or repeatedly activated, is often linked to maladaptive coping strategies as they regulate stress immediately, but only temporary.[xvi] For instance, avoidance of a task makes one feel relieved at the exact moment but does not benefit in a long-term way. Consequently, this implies that depletion vulnerability is also related to procrastination as it results in maladaptive coping which in turn is considered to increase risk of procrastination.
Procrastination in academic contexts
Procrastination occurs frequently in the academic domain. A study conducted by Schraw et al. which interviewed 60 students showed that procrastination depends on the circumstances. For instance, differences between consequences such as expectations and deadlines, personal interest including initiative and motivation and other conditions as (un)clear directions and goal setting can impact the likelihood of procrastination. However, most of the surveyed students perceived procrastination as a rather positive state because it can maximize learning in a minimal frame of time and increase the likelihood of focused working.[xvii] Nevertheless, it should be noted that the survey did not contain a lot of participants and can hence be less significant. Whether one views procrastination as positive also depends on personal traits and skills. For example, some people rather prefer an open schedule over a packed one since there are also different ways to manage stress situations.
Overcoming procrastination
In general, to overcome procrastination it is most efficient to make clear what positive emotions such as satisfaction, content and relaxation are linked to finishing a task. Unlike scientists assumed in the past, procrastination is not a time management problem, but rather an emotion regulation problem. That is why endless to-do lists and calendars mostly do not help to overcome procrastination since they rather lead to stress and anxiety. More important is however self-compassion, which is closely linked to emotional states, since the reduce of negative emotions decreases the likelihood to procrastinate. Furthermore, motivation stands in contrast to fear, meaning that concentrating on goals, or respectively, the benefit of an action has positive effects.[xviii] In all, it is beneficial to focus on future advantages resulting from accomplishing a goal or finishing a task, meaning that considering the long-term benefits makes one more motivated.
Conclusion
In all, procrastination is considered as an unnecessary, intentional delay of an action which mostly entails negative consequences while circumstances such as task aversiveness, social environment and goals have an impact on occurrence including severity and frequency of procrastination. Many theories have been introduced to determine the exact reasons of procrastination such as conditions of perception, utility and self-regulation, but also predetermined character traits. To cope and overcome procrastination, self- compassion, future visions and intrinsic motivation play a big part.
Endnotes
[i] Ferrari et al., 2007, as cited in Klingsieck, 2013
[ii] Schouwenburg, 2004, as cited in Klingsieck, 2013
[iii] Day et al., 2000, as cited in Klingsieck, 2013
[iv] Schraw, Watson and Olafson, 2007, as cited in Rebetez, 2022
[v] Klingsieck, 2013, p. 26
[vi] Pychyl, T. A., & Flett, G. L., 2012, as cited in Klingsieck, 2013
[vii] Watson, 2001, as cited in Klingsieck, 2013
[viii] Jackson et al., 2000, as cited in Klingsieck, 2013
[ix] Ferrari et al., 2007, as cited in Klingsieck, 2013
[x] Ferrari, 1994, 2000, as cited in Klingsieck, 2013
[xi] Ferrari, 1991, as cited in Klingsieck, 2013
[xii] Deci et al., 2000
[xiii] Steel et al., 2006
[xiv] Kuhl, 1985, as cited in Sirois, 2023
[xv] Sirois, 1985
[xvi] Sirois, 2023
[xvii] Schraw et al., 2007, as cited in Sirois, 2023
[xviii] Munda, Thangavel, 2024
Bibliography
Bagus Siaputra (2010), ‘Temporal Motivation Theory: Best Theory (yet) to Explain Procrastination’, Anima Indonesian Psychology Journal, 25(3), pp. 206-214
Klingsieck, K., B. (2013), ‘Procrastination: When good things don’t come for those who wait’, European Psychologists, 18(1), pp. 24-34
Munda, X. and Thangavel, V. (2024) ‘Research-based strategies to combat procrastination’, SAR Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 5(4), pp. 61-65
Rebetez, M., M., L., Barsics, C., Montisci, T. and Rochat, L. (2022), ‘Towards a Dimensional, Multifactorial, and Integrative Approach to Procrastination in Everyday Life: An Illustration through Interviews’, Psychologica Belgica, 62(1), pp. 166-183
Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000), ‘Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being’, American Psychologist, 55(1), pp. 68-78
Sirois, F. M. (2023), ‘Procrastination and Stress: A Conceptual Review of why Context Matters’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), 5031
Sirois, F., M. and Giguère, B. (2018) ‘Giving in when feeling less good: Procrastination, action control, and social temptations’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 57 (2), pp. 404-42