Related Experiment Videos
Summary
This study challenges assumptions about procrastinators, finding that an intervention to schedule daily writing sessions effectively reduced procrastination in academics. This suggests procrastination involves both
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Behavioral Science
- Academic Productivity
Background:
- Traditional views of procrastination often assume self-report reliability and difficulty in observing the behavior.
- Scholarly writing, being unstructured, is particularly susceptible to procrastination.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the reliability of self-reported procrastination behaviors.
- To test the efficacy of a structured intervention for academic procrastination.
Main Methods:
- Employed repeated surveys and direct observations to assess procrastinator self-reports.
- Implemented and evaluated an intervention designed to facilitate daily writing sessions for new faculty.
Main Results:
- Direct observations challenged the assumption that procrastinators are reliable reporters of their time use.
- The intervention, promoting brief daily writing, proved effective and was perceived as unaversive.
- Intervention success supported the idea that procrastination in scholarly writing comprises bingeing and busyness.
Conclusions:
- Self-observation and reporting by procrastinators may be unreliable.
- Structured interventions can effectively mitigate procrastination in academic writing.
- Procrastination in unstructured academic tasks involves distinct patterns of 'bingeing' and 'busyness'.