EAGER: Procrastination: mechanisms and interventions

Procrastination is a widespread problem with significant economic costs. In the U.S., delays in tasks such as tax filing result in millions of dollars in lost revenue. Reducing procrastination is crucial for lowering economic costs and improving well-being.

Interventions such as breaking tasks into smaller subgoals and reducing the delay of reward are widely proposed in self-help books; however, their scientific foundation is lacking. Do these interventions truly work? For whom do they work most effectively?

Why do they succeed or fail? This project applies cognitive science to answer these questions, providing a scientific foundation for designing more effective interventions tailored to individuals.

This research investigates how two specific interventions affect procrastination, who benefits most from them, and why these interventions succeed or fail from the perspective of cognitive mechanisms. Specifically, it examines the effects of reward immediacy and subgoal-setting strategies, focusing on interim deadlines and subgoal size. The project adopts a dynamic decision-making perspective, viewing procrastination as an ongoing process influenced by shifting cognitive costs and motivation, rather than a one-time choice.

Using a newly developed naturalistic experimental framework, this project moves beyond traditional lab-based tasks to systematically assess intervention effects in realistic task settings. Statistical models analyze how intervention effectiveness varies based on individual characteristics, such as perfectionism. To uncover the cognitive mechanisms underlying procrastination, computational models are developed and tested against behavioral data.

This research has the potential to significantly advance our understanding of procrastination and lay the groundwork for more effective, personalized interventions that can improve productivity, reduce economic losses, and enhance overall well-being.

This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.