Procrastination is a common habit that many people struggle with. Take the scenario where an individual purposefully puts off working on a task until the very last moment, even though they had every intention of starting earlier. This behavior is commonly known as procrastination.
Procrastination is a widespread issue that has a long-term impact on around 20% of adults and 50% of college students. It is linked to a range of challenges, including decreased academic performance, financial difficulties, emotional distress, mental health issues, physical health concerns, and delays in seeking support for these problems.
Due to the widespread occurrence and significant consequences of procrastination, researchers have extensively studied this phenomenon from multiple disciplinary angles, such as psychology, behavioral economics, and neuroscience. This research has resulted in the development of numerous theories regarding the factors contributing to procrastination. While there is still no unanimous agreement on this matter, certain theories have emerged as prominent in the field of procrastination research.
Gaining a deep understanding of the theories surrounding procrastination can be instrumental in preventing its occurrence. Therefore, this article will discuss the primary theories that are currently utilized to understand procrastination and connect them to practical tips for minimizing procrastination.
Exploring theories of procrastination
There are currently two main academic theories regarding the psychological factors behind procrastination:
- The theory of emotion regulation suggests that individuals tend to prioritize their immediate mood over long-term goals and well-being. This often leads to procrastination, as people tend to delay unpleasant tasks in order to avoid negative emotions.
- Temporal motivation theory suggests that procrastination can arise when individuals lack motivation, often due to factors such as perceiving low-value outcomes, having low expectations of achieving desired outcomes, experiencing significant delays before achieving outcomes, or being highly sensitive to these delays.
Both theories have been extensively researched and provide valuable insights into the causes and patterns of procrastination. However, as demonstrated in the following sections that delve into these theories, both theories also have their limitations and have faced criticism on different fronts. They do not offer a flawless explanation for procrastination.
The theory of emotion regulation
Based on the emotion-regulation theory, procrastination happens when individuals prioritize their immediate mood over long-term goals and overall well-being.
This typically occurs when individuals delay a task they perceive as unpleasant, whether due to boredom, frustration, confusion, fear, or other negative emotions. It is often referred to as “giving in to feel good” or mood repair. However, this can also occur when individuals delay tasks to avoid the lack of positive emotions (e.g., if a task isn’t stimulating) or to generate, enhance, or extend positive emotions (e.g., when a more enticing option is accessible, such as digital entertainment).
The behavior described by this theory is seen as counterproductive, as it hampers long-term progress and can ironically diminish people’s overall emotional well-being. For instance, this can occur when someone delays a task they dislike, leading to prolonged concern and heightened negative emotions such as guilt and shame.
The emotion-regulation theory is in line with other models of self-regulation and self-control, where the clash between immediate gratification and long-term objectives is observed. However, it emphasizes the concept of misregulation, where individuals engage in procrastination due to the mistaken belief that it will provide them with a sense of relief. This is in contrast to underregulation, where individuals procrastinate due to a lack of self-control. Both of these factors can contribute to the occurrence of procrastination.
An important aspect of the emotion-regulation theory involves temporal disjunction, where individuals experience a sense of detachment from their future selves, causing them to prioritize the desires and needs of their present selves. For instance, this may entail delaying a crucial task to uplift the current state of mind, disregarding the future repercussions that will need to be addressed as a result.
The emotion-regulation theory effectively captures important aspects of procrastination, allowing for a comprehensive understanding and accurate prediction in certain situations. However, this theory has several limitations and has faced criticism on multiple fronts, including the following:
- It fails to address certain underlying factors that contribute to procrastination. As an illustration, it fails to consider the impact of hyperbolic discounting on motivation, a key element of the competing temporal motivation theory (although the emotion-regulation theory does acknowledge the role of temporal disjunction).
- It fails to sufficiently clarify certain patterns of procrastination. As an illustration, it fails to address situations where individuals delay tasks even though they are fully aware that it will negatively impact their current state, leading to feelings of guilt and shame.
- It presents a rather problematic portrayal of the importance of self-control. Emotion-regulation theory presents a different perspective on procrastination, suggesting that it is a form of misregulation rather than underregulation. However, this description raises concerns about the importance of self-control and related concepts like willpower, self-discipline, and impulsivity in understanding procrastination. As an illustration, two prominent advocates of this theory express in a paper that “our tendency to delay tasks is not due to impulsiveness or a lack of self-discipline, but rather a way to manage our emotions through task avoidance.” Individuals who struggle with impulsivity or lack self-discipline may find themselves more prone to giving in to the temptation of procrastination as a means of short-term mood repair. However, the primary explanation for why we procrastinate lies in its function as a strategy for regulating our emotions. While proponents of this theory do recognize the role of self-control, it is important to note that it is not solely impulsivity or a lack of self-discipline that drives people to procrastinate. Rather, low self-control can be a contributing factor in practice. For instance, if two individuals are presented with a tempting alternative and one of them succumbs to procrastination due to a lack of self-control, it would be inaccurate to attribute their procrastination solely to their lower self-control. Even if their capacity to control their emotions has an impact on their decision to procrastinate, this is still the case. From a practical standpoint, this can also result in misunderstandings, where individuals may mistakenly believe that procrastination is unrelated to self-control, despite the significant connection between the two.
- It downplays the significance of other crucial factors or fails to adequately address them. It is worth mentioning that the theory discussed above does not adequately address the factors that can contribute to procrastination by undermining people’s self-control. This encompasses various factors, such as sleep deprivation and a disruptive work setting. Such factors are essential to consider, as they can play a significant role in explaining why people procrastinate in practice. For instance, they can provide insights into why someone may delay tasks in certain situations but not in others (such as feeling tired and therefore having reduced self-control), even though they generally have a strong ability to manage their emotions.
The theory of temporal motivation
Based on the temporal motivation theory (TMT), procrastination is a result of individuals lacking the necessary motivation to complete a task.
Within TMT, individuals’ motivation (or the desirability of a particular task/choice) is quantified using an equation commonly referred to as the procrastination equation. There, the perceived value of an outcome and the person’s expectation of achieving it determine the level of motivation. The length of time it takes to receive the result and the person’s sensitivity to delays are then divided. Furthermore, it is possible to include a constant value of “1” in the denominator of the TMT equation. This adjustment ensures that motivation does not skyrocket to infinity when the remaining delay becomes extremely small.
According to this theory and equation, individuals become more motivated as they place a higher value on an outcome and have greater expectations of achieving it. On the other hand, individuals tend to lose motivation when there is a longer wait for them to achieve their desired outcome, especially if they are highly sensitive to delays. It is evident that individuals have a tendency to favor rewards that are substantial, probable, and near in time, while desiring punishments that are minor, improbable, and far in the future.
Different underlying factors have an impact on the components of the TMT equation. As an illustration, a person’s desire for success, belief in their own abilities, and propensity for becoming distracted can all affect how much value they place on different things. TMT is often referred to as a meta-theory that aims to incorporate different theories of motivation, such as hyperbolic discounting, expectancy theory, cumulative prospect theory, and need theory.
TMT provides valuable insights into the phenomenon of procrastination, allowing for a better understanding and prediction of this behavior in certain situations. However, this theory has several limitations and has faced criticism on multiple fronts, including the following:
- It implies that logical reasoning has an impact on procrastination. According to a researcher, there is a belief that procrastinators use rational thinking, but with flawed or incorrect information, to justify their motivation for delaying tasks. Due to the negative emotions and perceptions associated with procrastination, it can be argued that many individuals who procrastinate may eventually realize that their behavior is not objectively rational. It is clear that procrastination is a self-defeating problem and those who struggle with it possess a rational and mental equation. With this understanding, they should be motivated and capable of avoiding problematic delays. Considering the prolonged persistence of self-destructive behavior among many procrastinators, it is worth examining the applicability of the TMT equation to this particular group.
- It downplays the importance of unconscious processes, like emotion. According to a researcher, TMT primarily focuses on conscious decision-making processes and does not consider other interconnected and unconscious processes, such as emotions. While certain aspects of the model are seen as subjective or predisposed to influence, it does not distinguish the impact of these processes. One could argue that the model lacks clarity in determining whether perceived values and expectancy, or actual and sometimes implicit values and expectancy, should be considered. This can result in problems such as predicting that someone will take action based on a mental calculator when, in reality, they may procrastinate due to emotional inhibition when faced with a challenging task.
- It reduces the influence of irrational beliefs. For instance, supporters of TMT frequently claim that irrational beliefs, such as perfectionism, have little to no connection with procrastination and may even serve as a safeguard against it. However, this perspective has faced criticism on multiple fronts. For instance, when it comes to perfectionism, scholars have highlighted that this assertion holds true only for certain aspects of perfectionism. Additionally, they have raised concerns about the research methods employed to support the initial arguments against the influence of irrational beliefs.
- It downplays the significance of other crucial factors or includes them in a vague manner. For instance, TMT has faced criticism for not adequately considering environmental factors that have a significant impact on motivation, as well as for neglecting various metacognitive processes. Furthermore, while supporters of TMT argue that it considers task aversiveness in the value component (with less aversive tasks having a higher value), TMT has faced criticism for not directly addressing task aversion. In addition, there are some concerns regarding the relationship between task aversiveness and outcome value. It is important to note that perceiving a task as unpleasant does not always impact how valuable the outcome of that task is perceived to be. Moreover, another aspect to consider is that impulsiveness is occasionally referred to as sensitivity to delay, while it is also acknowledged as one of the contributing factors to sensitivity to delay, along with distractibility and a lack of self-control. Another aspect to consider is the influence of self-control and other related factors on individuals’ behavior, even in situations unrelated to sensitivity to delay.
- There are additional simplifications that are relevant only in specific, limited scenarios. As an illustration, the use of TMT can sometimes rely on the assumption of consistent usefulness for background temptations, which may not accurately represent real-life situations (i.e., individuals may assign varying importance to tempting activities, such as socializing, at different moments). Similarly, applications of TMT often make the assumption that the task deadline aligns with the time when the reward is received. However, this may not always be the case. For example, TMT suggests that a student who values high grades may be motivated to overcome procrastination and begin writing an essay just before its deadline. However, if the grades are not given until weeks or months later, there may still be a significant decrease in the perceived value of the reward by the time the task is due.
- It emphasizes the importance of staying motivated rather than succumbing to procrastination. Although motivation is a crucial factor in self-regulation and its impact on procrastination, it is not the only element that influences it. This raises concerns as TMT does not adequately address situations where individuals experience strong motivation to act yet still struggle with procrastination. Furthermore, there are conceptual considerations to take into account, such as the inclusion of self-control as a determinant of motivation (within the context of sensitivity to delay). It is important to recognize that self-control not only impacts individuals’ motivation but also plays a significant role in shaping their actions and tendency to procrastinate.
Exploring the theories of procrastination
Due to the limitations of existing theories on procrastination, efforts have been made to formulate new theories that can provide a more comprehensive understanding of its underlying causes.
As an illustration, one theory that explores the interplay of self-control, emotion regulation, and motivation in procrastination is the temporal decision model. This model integrates emotion-regulation theory and TMT by incorporating a task-aversiveness component into the TMT equation. This model examines the decision-making process behind taking action or avoiding it over time by analyzing the relative strength of the motivation to act and the motivation to avoid. According to this model:
“The lack of motivation to complete a task is often linked to the perception that the task is unpleasant. As time passes, the task’s negative perception tends to lessen, which causes this lack of motivation to lessen. On the other hand, the drive to take action comes from the potential rewards that the task can bring. This drive becomes stronger when the task is pushed further into the future, as the impact of delayed rewards is less diminished when the task is closer to the time of receiving those rewards. As a result, individuals tend to put off unpleasant tasks in the short term because their desire to avoid them is stronger than their motivation to take action. However, they may intend to tackle these tasks in the long run, as their motivation to act eventually outweighs their inclination to avoid them (also known as procrastination).
Nevertheless, this model still encompasses the majority of the concerns linked to TMT, as it assumes that procrastination is motivated by logical reasoning. In addition, there are other considerations to take into account, such as explicitly including task aversiveness in a new component while still relying on the TMT framework, where task aversiveness is implicitly included in the value component.
Furthermore, various theories, including the metacognitive model of procrastination, have been put forward to elucidate the phenomenon of procrastination, each with its own unique emphasis, advantages, and constraints. These theories may have varying objectives at times. These factors are relevant not only to the effectiveness of these theories in explaining procrastination but also to their practical usefulness. This includes considering their simplicity and how easily they can be applied to guide interventions for procrastination.
Ultimately, there are alternative theories that address aspects of procrastination, even if they don’t specifically center around it. For example, this includes construal-level theory, which can shed light on why individuals tend to delay less on tasks that are more tangible and specific as opposed to abstract ones. Additionally, self-determination theory can provide insights into why individuals are less prone to procrastination when they are intrinsically motivated to complete a task.
The intricacies of procrastination
The complexity of procrastination poses a significant challenge to developing a comprehensive theory for this phenomenon. This complexity arises from various factors, including the multitude of reasons behind procrastination, the different manifestations of procrastination, and the various types of individuals who engage in procrastination.
Additionally, other factors serve to further increase this complexity. For instance, there is ongoing debate about the various forms of delaying tasks as well as the complex factors that contribute to this behavior. These factors can include perfectionism, which can either amplify or reduce procrastination or have no significant impact on it.
However, the following are the main characteristics that typically define procrastination, which theories of procrastination should be able to address:
- There is an avoidable delay.
- The delay often results in expectedly unfavorable consequences, such as a decline in the procrastinator’s performance or emotional state.
- The delay is frequently, though not consistently, unintentional, occurring despite the procrastinator’s intention to complete tasks earlier.
Effective strategies for overcoming procrastination
From a practical standpoint, if you want to decrease procrastination in yourself and others, the crucial step is to apply effective techniques to combat procrastination, ideally after understanding the underlying reasons behind it. By utilizing the theories of procrastination, you can effectively pinpoint some of these underlying causes while also considering the limitations associated with these theories.
