Edited by: Michael C. W. Yip, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Reviewed by: Zhiyi Chen, Army Medical University, China; Imanuel Hitipeuw, State University of Malang, Indonesia
This article was submitted to Personality and Social Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Academic procrastination – habitually delaying work with academic tasks to the extent that the delays become detrimental to performance, wellbeing, and health – represents a substantial personal, systemic, and societal problem. Still, efforts to prevent and reduce it are surprisingly scarce and often offered as treatment regimens rather than preventive efforts. Based on the principles of functional analysis and a broad examination of factors that are important for academic procrastinatory behaviors, this paper aims to describe a strategy for analyzing individual controlling conditions for procrastination and give parallel advice on how to change those controlling conditions. Both are ideographic, allowing for individual and dynamic analyses of factors responsible for instigating and maintaining procrastination, as well as tailor-made remedies that address controlling conditions in preventive and curative efforts to reduce procrastination. Although functional analysis integrates well with important research findings in the procrastination field, this approach suggests new criteria for identifying procrastinatory behaviors and an alternative model for analyzing their control conditions. We conclude that a functional approach may supplement procrastination research and efforts to prevent and alleviate this detrimental habit.
Procrastination – delaying tasks despite expecting to be worse off for the delay (
A proper understanding of procrastination, in terms of definitional criteria and underlying mechanisms, is necessary to grasp the complexity of the procrastination phenomenon when developing preventive and curative measures. Researchers agree that behavioral delay is a fundamental criterion for procrastination. Notably, modern definitions emphasize that such delays must be detrimental for the person to be regarded as procrastination (e.g.,
As for mechanisms, procrastination is often understood as a breakdown in self-regulation (e.g.,
Little is known about the relative importance of these (or other) forms of self-regulation in procrastination. In addition, as self-regulation focuses on strategies initiated by the individual, other factors that challenge goal-directed behavior should be examined. In the academic context, “procrastination-friendly” situational and organizational factors are of particular interest (e.g.,
Attempts to prevent and reduce procrastination include advice and web-based information, as well as treatment efforts to help students overcome more serious procrastination problems. A meta-analysis of 24 intervention studies (
In summary, these considerations indicate that multiple challenges face the procrastination research field. In terms of definition, understanding of mechanisms, and prevention/treatment efforts, a need for a fresh look is indicated.
The ABC approach encompasses a broad set of principles derived from the psychology of learning, including stimulus control, reinforcement, extinction, and many others (e.g.,
In the sections to follow, we first present a brief overview of the basics of functional analysis as applied to procrastination, followed by a discussion of how this approach differs from established approaches. Then we examine, in some detail, how the rich field of procrastination will fit in an analysis in terms of A (Antecedent conditions), B (Behavior), and C (Consequences). As will be shown, the fit is surprisingly good, indicating that FA indeed presents itself as a promising approach to supplement traditional approaches. However, differences in operationaliations of procrastinatory behaviors as well in the way such behaviors are analyzed indicate important contributions of FA.
FA assumes that behavior – procrastinatory behavior included – is adaptive and, to a large degree, learned and hence modifiable. However, sometimes adaptation to a given environment goes astray. For example, fear of wasps may be functional, but in phobic reactions to wasps, the behavior is exaggerated and often maladaptive. In the case of (academic) procrastination, the main problem is that some goal-relevant behavior (e.g., academic work) is replaced by other activities too often (e.g., watching TV), resulting in a delay in goal-relevant behaviors. Whereas procrastination research has focused primarily on delayed goal-relevant activity, FA also examines the “irrational” procrastinatory behaviors and asks why these are preferred.
As noted, FA assesses procrastinatory behaviors at the individual level in terms of a three-term contingency analysis. The dynamic interplays between the ABCs represent the very heart of functional analysis, as the Cs following Bs are assumed to work as a causal factor. Hence, if you choose to respond to an aversive task (A) with an avoidance behavior (B), and that behavior then is typically followed by stress reduction and improved mood (C), those consequences work to strengthen this behavior. When you later face an aversive task, avoidance behavior tends to become more likely. In effect, the relations described by the ABC are assumed to be causal, but they describe causality in a complex model. Specifically,
SD alters the probability of some behavior because of a prior history of B-C relations under this SD
B-C relations are causal in that C affects the
As these relations are idiosyncratic, their nature must be determined in individual functional analyses. For procrastination, the basic ingredients are:
SD:
B-C relations:
Schematic model of functional analysis, using negative reinforcement (escape) as an example. The antecedent (aversive task) sets the occasion for a procrastinatory behavior (stop task work), resulting in immediate mood improvement (consequence). Note that the Antecedent - Behavior relation is probabilistic (indicated by “:”), whereas the Behavior ➔ Consequence relation is causal. Note also that the negative reinforcement episode at T1 increases or maintains the probability that similar behaviors will be repeated under similar antecedents later (T2, and so on). Therefore, functional analysis is longitudinal and processual in nature, capable of capturing the dynamic effect of repeated reinforcement episodes.
What could functional analysis (FA) add to the procrastination field? Although the answers to this general question must be assessed in individual analyses, research in the procrastination field provides several plausible paths to explore. As seen in
Next, how does this approach differ from traditional approaches to the procrastination problem? We briefly discuss five important dimensions.
Idiosyncratic. FA allows for an analysis of procrastination at the individual level (idiosyncratic approach), addressing specific characteristics and suggest appropriate measures to train goal-striving skills. As discussed, identification of individual profiles may be important both in the understanding of procrastination and in terms of intervention efforts (
Focus on behavior.
As a cautionary note, FA may be used in different ways, from truly experimental to descriptive and interpretative, often called indirect or anecdotal (e.g.,
Differences between functional analysis and traditional procrastination research on five important dimensions.
Functional analysis | Procrastination research | |
---|---|---|
Approach | Idiosyncratic | Nomothetic |
Definition | Behavioral function | Behavioral intention/expectation |
Focus | Automatic, impulsive system; reflective, conscious system | Primarily reflective, conscious system |
Analytical strategy | Causal, experimental | Correlational |
Mechanism | Appetitive and aversive contingencies as drivers of the impulsive system | Appetitive and aversive events as disruptors of the reflective system |
Given this perspective, an important role of
In the remainder of this paper, we explore in more detail the utility of functional analysis in the understanding and prevention/treatment of procrastination. As FA is simple to understand as well as to implement in preventive and curative efforts, knowledge of basic principles might help the student as well as teachers and counselors to understand the ABCs of procrastination and thereby become capable of identifying and changing controlling conditions. FA might be seen as a tool for “awareness-raising” or insight into factors contributing to the individual’s procrastination. In the next section, we explore the procrastination literature related to the Antecedent conditions for procrastination, procrastinatory Behaviors, as well as typical Consequences of procrastinatory episodes.
In functional analyses, antecedent conditions (A or SD) represent signals or conditions for specific behaviors, as well as signals for typical consequences associated with those behaviors. We discuss three examples of classes of antecedent conditions that all serve this function. The classes are well-documented and may be common to many procrastinators.
A potent antecedent for procrastination is temptations present during goal-directed work. For example, if friends meet socially when you are working on an assignment, it may take extra effort to continue. Continued work under such conditions is a typical example of self-control (e.g.,
One of the best-established findings in the procrastination literature is that task aversiveness reliably predicts procrastination (
As in the case of temptations/distractions, task aversiveness is a signal for preference reversals during goal striving, motivated by the expectation that procrastinatory behaviors bring about an immediate reduction in negative feelings.
Task aversiveness may be regarded as a relatively static property of tasks. However, task aversiveness is often related to fluctuating factors, some depending on individual characteristics. For example, lack of energy and tiredness may make tasks appear aversive or tiresome to engage in. Lack of energy is reliably and strongly associated with procrastination.
Hence, the subjective experience of lack of energy may be a strong antecedent signaling that avoidant behavior pays off in terms of temporary relief and mood repair.
Antecedent conditions work in conjunction with other factors that may prompt the individual to delay through other mechanisms. For example, in the case of long deadlines, the desired outcome is temporally distant. Temporal distance to the desired outcome is a well-documented factor involved in procrastination (
Another important set of factors that must be considered is individual difference variables. For example, an individual high in conscientiousness would probably be immune to situational temptations during goal striving. For this reason, analyses of antecedent stimuli should also address relevant individual difference variables in a systematic way. Importantly, some difference variables demonstrate very low or no correlations to procrastination, such as age, gender, intellectual capability, fear of failure, and perfectionism (
We examined three classes of well-documented correlates of procrastination. As discussed, the function of antecedents is not only to increase the probability of procrastinatory behaviors. According to FA, antecedents may also have an important function of signaling typical consequences of procrastinatory behaviors under these conditions. These consequences, in turn, have the function of reinforcing procrastinatory behaviors. Such antecedent ➔ behavior ➔ consequence relations will, if left unchanged, maintain or strengthen the procrastination habit. Furthermore, because these relations are learned, they can be unlearned or relearned. For example, when the B-C relation is subjected to extinction conditions or is followed by alternative, non-procrastinatory behavior, the antecedent conditions signal that the B-C relation is weakened. Similarly,
The standard criterion for procrastinatory delay behaviors is the subjective expectation of being worse off because one opts to delay (e.g.,
Research has provided a variety of examples of delays involved in procrastination. For a functional approach, a brief overview of common behavioral operationalizations of procrastination is necessary. Note, however, that many studies do not focus on behavior but rely on scale scores measuring self-reported procrastination. Such scales may measure general (trait, dispositional) procrastination, state procrastination (the reported occurrence of procrastinatory behavior), procrastination in a specific context (e.g., academic), and others (see
When researchers have addressed the
Researchers have repeatedly pointed out that onset delay, or intention-action gap (
It should be noted that late behavioral onset does not imply that “the faster the onset, the better.” Hasty and impulsive responding to action possibility, especially complex ones, may not be optimal. For example, immediate responses to e-mails increase the likelihood of making errors. Thus,
As most tasks require sustained effort over time, successful goal attainment requires continued work over days or weeks once the individual has started. In this phase, procrastination manifests itself as impulsive shifts from the ongoing activity to other tempting activities. Note that although the distinction between onset delay and delays during goal striving seems to be intuitively meaningful, “onset delay” (the intention-action gap) has been taken to refer to getting started the first time (“finally, I started work on my thesis”). But “onset” also may refer to reengagements in more comprehensive tasks that require several onsets or reengagements (e.g., start work again on my thesis after breaks and pauses).
In recent years, experience sampling (e.g.,
Given these considerations, it seems quite clear that FA would recommend alternative operationalizations, as well as alternative ways to handle them. We briefly discuss four operationalizations.
Activity scheduling then specifies activities the individual is recommended to perform more often, as well as activities the induvial is advised to perform more rarely. In the treatment of depression, such activities are scheduled with the aim of improving mood. In procrastination, mood may be a secondary aim, as the primary goal is to increase the proportion of goal-relevant activities relative to the proportion of goal-irrelevant activities. Here, activity scheduling should provide relatively detailed information on the triggers that typically instigate procrastinatory behaviors, as well as the typical consequences these behaviors produced under those conditions. Such information provides specific insight into the control conditions for different forms of procrastination for a given individual and on conditions that may be changed to reduce procrastination.
Although such preparatory behaviors are rarely examined in procrastination research, it is well known that procrastinators tend to come unprepared for classes and do last-minute preparations for classes and exams (e.g.,
Even though consequences tend to affect behavior, it is important to recognize that other factors may affect their role in behavioral control. For example, low outcome expectations for the target behavior (e.g., in the form of low self-efficacy) may strengthen the effect of immediately tempting alternative behaviors. Similarly, the ability to concretely represent desired outcomes of the focal task (e.g., in future episodic thinking) may weaken the effect of immediately available tempting alternatives.
This brief discussion indicates that FA approaches the operationalization of behavioral procrastination in ways different from traditional approaches in two important ways. First, procrastinatory behaviors are analyzed in terms of their function. Function is assessed individually in relation to immediate consequences, given specific antecedent conditions. This way of operationalizing procrastinatory behaviors allows for a more precise identification of procrastination compared both to the self-report approach and to prior attempts to define behavioral procrastination. Second, FA addresses procrastinatory behaviors in a more comprehensive way compared to most other approaches. Thus, currently available behavioral options, procrastinatory as well as non-procrastinatory, are the main focus. In addition, behaviors that precede them (e.g., preparatory behaviors; proactive behaviors) may be included in the analysis. Importantly, by focusing on behaviors that temporally precede the targeted procrastinatory behaviors, the individual may better realize how prior behaviors have consequences here and now and how they may be changed. For assessment as well as change, a well-documented and clinically validated approach to behavioral change, activity scheduling (
Procrastinatory behaviors, given “working with an assignment” as the activity planned.
Behavior | Example |
---|---|
Delay starting work with an assignment when there is no good reason for the delay | |
Quit or delay working on an assignment to do something more pleasurable | |
Did not prepare for a planned group meeting about an assignment | |
Strategically did not prepare for a planned group meeting about an assignment |
An important motivation for the functional analysis of procrastinatory behavior is the assumption that the consequences of procrastinatory behaviors are important in controlling this habit. As discussed, one of the dominating models of procrastination is an emotion-regulating model that regards procrastination as a self-regulatory failure, with short-term mood repair and emotion regulation as the main ingredients (
Negative reinforcement is described by a three-term contingency (ABC) where aversive antecedents (e.g., boring tasks) set the occasion for avoidance or escape behaviors. Behaviors that immediately remove, postpone, reduce, or in other ways lessen the aversiveness are reinforced. In an early paper,
Negative reinforcement includes two variants. In
An unfortunate side-effect of negative reinforcement contingencies is that focus is on avoiding or removing aversive states, with the potential of narrowing the individual’s behavior repertoire (
Whereas negative reinforcement acts by removing an aversive state dependent on (procrastinatory) behavior, positive reinforcement has its effect when an event is added to the situation dependent on behavior. As planned behavior is under the control of delayed consequences, other activities with desired consequences available now or soon are likely to compete and often win over the planned behavior. Preference reversal, the procrastinating individual’s willingness to make plans only to reverse plans before goal accomplishment (
Under a functional analysis, two important variables contribute to such preference reversals. First, situational temptations are potent reinforcers that will strengthen behaviors that produce them. In individuals who feel attracted to impulsive diversions from plans and/or are easily distractable, situational temptations may become close to irresistible. In fact, the correlation between procrastination and distractibility is high,
Response competition implies that behavior with immediate desired consequences tends to dominate over behaviors with long-term consequences. In effect, impulsiveness (i.e., impulsive deviations from plans) may be reinforced (see
We have discussed the two main mechanisms for how the consequences of procrastinatory behaviors work to strengthen such behaviors (see
Procrastinatory behaviors and consequences, given “working with an assignment” as the activity planned.
Behavioral consequence | Example |
---|---|
Working with assignments is aversive, just quitting produces immediate mood repair | |
Quit working on an assignment and instead do something more pleasurable |
As is apparent from the preceding discussion, the fit between analysis in terms of FA and traditional approaches is good. However, when it comes to the understanding of procrastinatory behavior, differences are obvious. Another difference relates to analytical strategy.
Central to a research field is that important concepts are clearly defined and well operationalized. Although the procrastination construct is reasonably well defined (i.e., behavioral delays that are detrimental to the individual), the criteria needed for separating procrastination from non-procrastinatory delays are not. In current definitions, the subjective intention when deciding to delay planned tasks is regarded as crucial (e.g.,
The ABC model takes a very different view, not on the definition itself but on the criteria needed to identify procrastinatory behaviors. Rather than focusing on intention, FA focuses on function: How are specific behaviors involved in the delay of planned activities, and what are their controlling conditions? Assessment of function must be done at the individual level, as the very same behavior (e.g., skip reading and do something else instead) may be controlled by different contingencies in different individuals (e.g., skip reading because the book is aversive or boring, or skip reading to have a coffee with a friend). As discussed, the methodology to identify behavioral function at the individual level is available (e.g.,
Another characteristic of FA is that procrastination is defined and operationalized behaviorally. This represents a significant step forward, as most procrastination research has used self-report scales despite the fact that procrastination is defined in terms of behavior. Also, as discussed, in cases where researchers have attempted to use behavioral measures, those measures have often been of questionable quality. The behavioral measure suggested by FA analyzes individual behavior in context using well-established procedures. By using activity monitoring and chain analysis, behaviors that demonstrably hamper planned goal attainment, as well as behaviors that are functional in goal attainment, are assessed. Activity monitoring and chain analysis provide a detailed account of possible control conditions for procrastinatory behaviors (their “function”) and hence of possible ways subsequent activity schedules may be administered.
Previous studies on (academic) procrastination have attempted to identify different typologies based on scale scores (e.g.,
Procrastination is a dynamic phenomenon, capable of being a cause, an outcome, and a correlate. As discussed, the general understanding of procrastination as a form of breakdown in self-regulation (e.g.,
The ABC model represents a fresh approach. First, functional analyses may address drivers of the automatic impulsive system (e.g.,
As the ABC model does not distinguish between automatic, impulsive behaviors and behaviors related to the reflective system, another strength of the ABC model is that procrastinatory behaviors related to the latter system may also be subjected to functional analysis. This is particularly relevant in interventions to increase the frequency of goal-relevant behaviors. For example, using activity scheduling (e.g.,
Building on the promising results from meta-analyses demonstrating that CBT is an effective form of intervention against procrastination (
Clearly, interventions may also apply other strategies to supplement FA. As an important mechanism involved in procrastination seems to be related to dysfunctional emotional regulation, especially of negative emotions (e.g.,
A fundamental barrier to adopting FA in the analysis of psychological topics is a heritage from the cognitive revolution. FA is rooted in the behavioristic tradition, and the view that psychology “could not participate in the cognitive revolution until it had freed itself from behaviorism, thus restoring cognition to scientific respectability” (
The question then arises as to whether the FA model is sufficiently compatible with a standard approach to procrastination. As argued throughout this paper, the answer is yes. Apart from differences in the operationalization and analysis of procrastinatory behaviors, we see no substantial barrier to integration. Specifically, an analysis in terms of FA will clearly benefit from the vast database of knowledge in the procrastination field. Furtheer, the current problems seen in the procrastination field regarding definitional criteria, theoretical understanding, and interventions all indicate that new impulses are welcome.
Another important issue is whether human behavior at all is affected by learning contingencies in the sense that is assumed in FA. For example, is human behavior at all sensitive to behavioral consequences? And if yes, do we need analysis in terms of conditioning? The answer to the first question is yes. In answering the second question, one view is that conditioning (learning of instrumental response-consequence relations) depends on cognition (the reflexive system; e.g.,
A frequent criticism of behavioristic thinking is that it does not recognize cognition and emotions. This criticism is wrong if “behaviorism” is understood as Skinnerian “radical behaviorism” (see
The present paper is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to systematically explore the utility of functional analysis to the procrastination problem. FA presents a strategy for analyzing controlling conditions for procrastinatory behaviors, and such analyses, in turn, provide powerful information to identify factors that may be changed to prevent and alleviate procrastination. Although FA is compatible with traditional approaches to the procrastination problem, we note that a particular strength of FA is its focus on behavior. As such, FA may add precision to the identification of procrastinatory behaviors and their controlling conditions, providing valuable information for prevention and reduction of procrastination.
Both authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Publication charges were covered by the publication fund of UiT The Arctic University of Norway.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
1In the present context we focus on the student population. It should be recognized, however, that even though students procrastinate more than people in general population, the principles described here most probably will apply to the understanding of procrastination in general. For example,
2"Behavior" is given a very broad meaning in FA. The concept includes observable acts (overt behaviors), but any activity that can occur in a living organism would be regarded as behavior.