Motivation and Procrastination Paper

Motivation Science
A Motivational Perspective on Academic Procrastination:

Goal Focus Affects How Students Perceive Activities
While Procrastinating
Oliver J. Kaftan and Alexandra M. Freund
Online First Publication, July 12, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000110
CITATION
Kaftan, O. J., & Freund, A. M. (2018, July 12). A Motivational Perspective on Academic
Procrastination: Goal Focus Affects How Students Perceive Activities While Procrastinating.
Motivation Science. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000110
Motivation Science
© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 1, No. 999, 000
2333-8113/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000110
A Motivational Perspective on Academic Procrastination:

Goal Focus Affects How Students Perceive Activities
While Procrastinating
Oliver J. Kaftan and Alexandra M. Freund

University of Zurich
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This 14-week longitudinal study with weekly real-time reports investigated if goal
focus (i.e., a focus on the process vs. the outcome of goal pursuit) is associated with
students’ (N ⫽ 105) perceptions of the activities in which they were engaged while
procrastinating (alternative activities). We compared perceptions of the alternative
activities with the focal activity (here: working on a bachelor’s thesis) as well as with
a baseline perception of the alternative activity. More specifically, we considered the
perceptions of the alternative activities regarding their importance, pleasantness, guilt,
stressfulness, delay of gratification, and the motivation to engage in them. Multilevel
analyses differentiating between relationships at the within- and between-person level
showed that process and outcome focus exert distinct influences on the perceptions of
activities and that outcome focus is a stronger predictor than process focus. Outcome
focus was positively related to importance and stress, and negatively to pleasantness,
guilt, and motivation. In contrast, process focus was positively associated with pleas-
antness and motivation, and negatively with guilt. While students perceived alternative
activities as rewarding at a later point in time when they focused more on the outcome,
they perceived these activities as more immediately gratifying when they focused more
on the process.
Keywords: procrastination, motivation, goal focus, activity perceptions, experience

sampling
Imagine two students, Anna and Bill, who only time they can fully devote to their theses,
share the goal of submitting a bachelor’s the- and they plan to do so each week. However,
sis in time in order to complete their college now that it is Thursday, Bill and Anna put off
degree. For both, Thursday afternoon is the writing their theses and pursue their relatively
less important goal of working out—a classic
instance of procrastination (e.g., Steel, 2007).
Whereas Bill focuses on proper workout tech-
niques, Anna focuses on how much weight
Oliver J. Kaftan, Department of Psychology, University she might lose. In other words, one of the two
of Zurich; Alexandra M. Freund, Department of Psychology students focuses primarily on the “how” or
and University Research Priority Program Dynamics of
Healthy Aging, University of Zurich. the process of goal-directed behavior (e.g.,
We are thankful to Michaela Wirth, Debora Mittner, proper workout techniques), the other on the
Sarah Schoch, and Elke Schröder for support in the data “why” or the outcome of goal pursuit (e.g.,
collection, and to the Life-Management team for valuable weight loss). The concept of goal focus
input throughout the entire process of conceptualizing and
running the study. Oliver J. Kaftan is a fellow of the (Freund & Hennecke, 2015) denotes this dis-
International Max Planck Research School on the Life tinction between the salience of the process
Course (LIFE). (i.e., process focus) and the salience of the
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- ends of goal pursuit (i.e., outcome focus).
dressed to Oliver J. Kaftan or Alexandra M. Freund, De-
partment of Psychology, University of Zurich, Binzm-
This study tested the hypothesis that goal
uehlestrasse 14/11, CH-8050 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: focus is associated with how students evaluate
kaftan@psychologie.uzh.ch or freund@psychologie.uzh.ch the activities in which they engage during pro-
1
2 KAFTAN AND FREUND
crastination episodes (i.e., alternative activities) during goal striving (in this case, writing a bach-
in absolute terms and compared with how they elor’s thesis), that is, during the actional phase in
evaluate the same activities when they do not the Rubicon model of action phases (Gollwitzer,
procrastinate (i.e., as compared with a baseline 1990; Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987).
rating). In the above example: as how important Over the last two decades, there has been an
and pleasant do Anna and Bill perceive the increasing interest in the causes of procrastina-
work out at the gym when they procrastinate tion, revealing characteristics of the focal activ-
working on their theses (i.e., in absolute terms), ity as a major predictor. In a meta-analysis,
and compared with when they go to the gym on Steel (2007) identified task aversiveness as the
any other day (i.e., as compared with when they strongest predictor pertaining to task character-
do not procrastinate)? In addition, we investi- istics: the more unpleasant a task is, the more
gated the influence of goal focus on evaluations likely people are to put it off. This fits well with
of the alternative activities relative to the eval- the finding that emotional distress may shift
uations of the bachelor’s thesis that students priorities toward the immediate present with the
procrastinate (i.e., the focal activity). In the aim to avoid distress (e.g., Tice, Bratslavsky, &
above example: as how important and pleasant Baumeister, 2001). That is, people may find it
do Anna and Bill perceive the workout at the more appealing to engage in an alternative, en-
gym when they procrastinate as compared with joyable activity instead of the aversive focal
working on their theses? activity. This has also been addressed as a sign
Although procrastination implies the delay of of impulsiveness or a lack of being able to delay
one activity in favor of another, research has gratification, as more immediately rewarding
only just begun to systematically assess charac- activities may distract people from pursing the
teristics of both focal and alternative activities, focal goal (e.g., Steel, 2007). Increasing the
and how they relate to each other to better perceived importance of the focal activity may
understand the processes underlying procrasti- be one way of counteracting this tendency
nation (e.g., Giguère, Sirois, & Vaswani, 2016). (Trope & Fishbach, 2000). When failing to do
In the current study, we chose the writing of a so, procrastinating the focal activity may be
bachelor’s thesis as the focal activity because accompanied by feelings of guilt (e.g., Pychyl
academic procrastination is frequent. For in- & Little, 1998).
stance, students often put off writing a term In sum, these findings suggest that the eval-
paper (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) because uation of activities in terms of importance,
this activity may be perceived as stressful, frus- pleasantness, guilt, stressfulness, immediate/
trating, boring, or a combination thereof (Py- delayed rewards (i.e., delay of gratification),
chyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000). In addi- and the general motivation to engage in these
tion, students typically have a great deal of activities is crucial for our understanding of
autonomy as to when to work on their papers, procrastination. In the following, we argue that
and are often given fairly loose deadlines, these characteristics are not stable but dynamic,
which is known to contribute to procrastination thus warranting the exploration of potential pre-
(Ariely & Wertenbroch, 2002). Most of this is dictors (here: goal focus) of these changes.
also true for writing a bachelor’s thesis, a rela-
tively ill-structured task with a deadline that lies The Dynamic Nature of Activity
many months in the far-seeming future. Characteristics and Goal Focus
Procrastination: Definition and Causes Although procrastination is often considered

to be a traitlike characteristic (e.g., Schouwen-
Procrastination is defined as the purposive burg & Lay, 1995), recent research has revealed
delay of an intended course of action despite the situational determinants and led to a more dy-
expectation to be worse off for the delay (Steel, namic understanding of procrastination, allow-
2007). Procrastination can occur in all phases of ing to explore perceptions of activities at the
the motivational process: during goal choice, moment of immediate experience as people
goal planning, and goal striving (Steel & Wein- work toward or procrastinate on a particular
hardt, 2017; see also Krause & Freund, 2014b). project. Pychyl et al. (2000; see also Ferrari,
The current research addresses procrastination Mason, & Hammer, 2006) found that activity
MOTIVATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON PROCRASTINATION 3
ratings between alternative activities in which construct (Krause & Freund, 2014b) and likely
students were engaged while procrastinating influences how people evaluate activities (Fujita
(e.g., watching TV) and focal activities they felt & Sasota, 2011). Given that the aversiveness of
they should be doing (e.g., studying for a sta- goal-relevant means is often considered one of
tistics exam) differed significantly. Specifically, the factors contributing to procrastination,
the procrastinated focal activities were rated as Krause and Freund (2016) investigated the link
being less pleasant, more confusing, more dif- between goal focus and the aversiveness of the
ficult, more stressful, and much more important. focal activity. Contrary to their expectation that
Participants continued to appraise the focal ac- a stronger process focus might increase the per-
tivities as very important when they were ac- ceived aversiveness of the means, they found a
tively engaged in them. However, they rated positive association of aversiveness of the focal
them as significantly more pleasant and less activity with a stronger outcome focus. As of
stressful, difficult, and confusing than they had yet, there is no research on the relationship
anticipated when they were avoiding them between goal focus and the evaluation of the
through procrastination. Thus, the findings of alternative activities. This is the focus of the
the study by Pychyl et al. (2000) suggest that current article that approaches procrastination
people perceive focal activities differently when by investigating how people perceive the activ-
they are procrastinating compared with when ity in which they engage while procrastinating.
they are not.
What about the evaluation of the alternative Goal Focus and the Evaluation of
activities people engage in while procrastinat- Alternative Activities
ing in real-life situations? Does the evaluation
of alternative activities also shift on such di- Overall, we hypothesized that outcome focus
mensions as pleasantness or importance when is more strongly associated with the evaluations
people engage in them while procrastinating the of alternative activities than process focus. Spe-
focal activity (i.e., writing the thesis)? And does cifically, we assume that one is more likely to
goal focus predict the perception of alternative be aware of procrastinating when asking oneself
activities? To approach these questions, we why one engages in an alternative activity (i.e.,
build on previous research, which has identified when adopting a stronger outcome focus). This,
goal focus as a relevant construct in the context in turn, should more generally lead to changes
of self-regulation (for an overview, see Freund, in the perception of these activities during pro-
Hennecke, & Mustafić, 2012). Goals can be crastination episodes (compared with baseline
defined as the association of means (process) evaluations of the same activities while not pro-
and ends (outcome; e.g., Kruglanski et al., crastinating). This might be the case because
2002). Goal focus denotes the salience of the higher level construals of a given goal (i.e.,
process or the outcome of goal pursuit; process focusing on the outcome) have been shown to
focus relates to the degree to which the means generalize to other goals (e.g., Fujita & Sasota,
of goal pursuit are in the focus of attention, 2011). To return to our opening example, when
whereas outcome focus relates to the degree to Anna focuses on the outcome of losing weight
which the ends of goal pursuit are in the fore while exercising instead of working on her
(Freund & Hennecke, 2015). Prior short-term bachelor’s thesis, she is more likely to be con-
longitudinal studies on such goals as regular fronted with the fact that working out does not
physical exercise or losing weight have found help her to advance her thesis. This, in turn,
that a stronger process focus is more adaptive likely affects the perceived importance of losing
for subjective as well as objective indicators of weight (over advancing the bachelor’s thesis).
successful goal striving (Freund & Hennecke, In contrast, focusing on the activity itself
2012; Freund, Hennecke, & Riediger, 2010; (i.e., a higher process focus) should allow peo-
Hennecke & Freund, 2014). Turning to procras- ple to better block out that they are currently
tination, first evidence suggests that a process procrastinating. By virtue of lowering the
focus on focal activities is also negatively awareness of procrastinating, focusing on the
linked to procrastination (Krause & Freund, process of the alternative activity should lead to
2016). Moreover, similar to activity character- less pronounced changes in its evaluation. For
istics, goal focus can be considered a dynamic instance, when Bill focuses on how to best
4 KAFTAN AND FREUND
perform the workout exercises, he is less likely By definition, the alternative activity has been
to reflect upon the fact that he ought to work on assigned a lower overall priority than the focal
his bachelor’s thesis. By focusing his attention activity. Thus, students likely have to delibera-
on the process of exercising, the likelihood of tively rationalize not working on their theses by
comparing the exercises with the process of perceiving a higher importance of the alterna-
working on his thesis is low. tive activity. More specifically, when students
In the following sections, we elaborate on focus more on the outcome of alternative activ-
potential influences of outcome and process fo- ities during procrastination episodes, they
cus on perceptions of alternative activities sep- should rate these activities as more important in
arately. This is in line with previous studies that absolute terms, as more important compared
have found no or only a weak relation between with when they are not procrastinating (i.e., a
process and outcome focus (Freund et al., 2010; baseline rating of the activities), and maybe
Krause & Freund, 2016). Table 1 summarizes even as more important than the focal activity
the hypothesized relationships between goal fo- (i.e., working on the bachelor’s thesis).
cus and characteristics of the alternative activ- Guilt. Studies have found a positive asso-
ity, differentiating between the perception of ciation between procrastination and guilt (Py-
alternative activities in absolute terms, relative chyl et al., 2000; Pychyl & Little, 1998). In line
to baseline (for importance and pleasantness), with an emotion regulation perspective on pro-
and relative to the procrastinated focal activity crastination (e.g., Pychyl & Sirois, 2016), we
(i.e., working on the thesis). posit that people try to downregulate the nega-
tive emotions such as guilt associated with pro-
Outcome Focus
crastination. One way to downregulate guilt is
Importance. We use the term “impor- to increase the perceived importance of the al-
tance” as attainment value attached to the out- ternative activities. This mechanism is akin to
come of goal pursuit (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) “self-indulgent reconstruals” (Anderson, 2016,
and interchangeably with the term “meaning” p. 51). Therefore, we hypothesized a negative
(e.g., Ferguson & Sheldon, 2010). Adopting an relationship between outcome focus and guilt. If
outcome focus relates to the meaning, the why, the increased importance serves as a guilt-
or importance of the outcome of goal pursuit. relieving justification of procrastination (Kroese
Thus, we hypothesized that a higher outcome & De Ridder, 2016), students may even per-
focus increases the salience of the importance of ceive alternative activities as less guilt provok-
the alternative activity during procrastination. ing than the focal activity. In other words, stu-
Table 1
Hypothesized Relationships Between Goal Focus and Different Characteristics of Alternative Activities in
Absolute Terms, Relative to Baseline, and Relative to Focal Activity
Outcome focus Process focus
Relative to Relative to Relative to Relative to
Dimension Absolute baseline focal activity Absolute baseline focal activity
Importance ⫹a ⫹b ⫺ ¡ ⫹c ⫹a 0b ⫺ ¡ ⫺ (⫹)c
Pleasantness ⫺ ⫺ ⫹¡0 ⫹ 0 ⫹ ¡ ⫹ (⫹)
Guilt ⫺ ⫹¡⫺ ⫺ ⫹ ¡ ⫹ (⫺)
Stress ⫹ ⫺ ¡ ⫺ (⫹) e e
Motivation e e ⫹ ⫹ ¡ ⫹ (⫹)
Delay of gratification ⫹ ⫺ ¡ ⫺ (⫹) ⫺ ⫺ ¡ ⫺ (⫺)
a
⫹ ⫽ positive association; ⫺ ⫽ negative association; e ⫽ exploratory. b Alternative activities are rated more (⫹)/equally
(0)/less (⫺) favorable on the respective dimension during procrastination episodes as compared to baseline when the
respective focus is high. c Signs before the arrows indicate higher (⫹)/lower (⫺) values for alternative activities as
compared to the focal activity when the respective focus is low. Signs after the arrows indicate higher (⫹)/equal (0)/lower
(⫺) values for alternative activities as compared to the focal activity when the respective focus is high. Signs in brackets
indicate direction of change from low to high values on the respective focus when signs before and after brackets are the
same.
dents might feel that they are doing the “right Motivation. There are two alternative hy-
thing” when they are procrastinating with an potheses regarding the effect of outcome focus
alternative activity that seems highly important on the motivation to engage in alternative ac-
at the time. For instance, exercising may sud- tivities. On the one hand, focusing on the de-
denly seem very important for one’s physical sired outcome of the activity may reduce its
and psychological well-being and temporarily intrinsic appeal (Freund & Hennecke, 2015),
justify procrastinating on the bachelor’s thesis. and the hypothesized lower pleasantness and
Pleasantness and stress. An outcome fo- higher stress might lead to decreases in the
cus implies to focus on why one is engaged in motivation to engage in the activity. On the
an activity (Freund & Hennecke, 2015), and other hand, the expected increase in importance
might thus heighten the awareness of not acting and decrease in guilt might motivate students to
in accordance with one’s standards, values, or maintain their engagement in the alternative
goals. Therefore, we hypothesized that a higher activity. The current study tested these two hy-
outcome focus lowers the pleasantness of the potheses.
alternative activity. In fact, definitions of pro-
crastination often assume an emotional discom- Process Focus
fort (e.g., Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) and
stress (for an overview, see Sirois, 2016). Pleasantness and delay of gratification.
Adopting an outcome focus should lead to more When procrastinating, students often engage in
stress and less enjoyment (also compared with immediately gratifying pleasant alternative ac-
baseline) of the alternative activity. For exam- tivities to avoid an aversive focal activity and
ple, watching TV might be less fun when being improve their mood (Pychyl & Sirois, 2016).
aware that one ought to work on the bachelor’s However, the factors that facilitate an escape
thesis instead. Furthermore, while students who from the negative emotions associated with the
do not focus on the outcome should perceive distressing focal activity are not yet fully un-
alternative activities as more pleasant and less derstood. Sirois (2014) suggested that becoming
stressful as the focal activity, this difference absorbed in the alternative activity is one way to
should decrease with a higher outcome focus. In facilitate mood repair (see also “mindless pro-
other words, when the outcome focus is strong, crastination”; Kroese, Nauts, Kamphorst, An-
procrastination may partly lose its short-term derson, & de Ridder, 2016, p. 101). Similarly,
mood-regulatory function (Tice & Baumeister, we hypothesized that a higher process focus
1997). This assumption is also in line with re- increases the salience of the pleasantness and
search on desire enactment, which suggests that immediate gratification of the alternative activ-
yielding to temptation results in “spoiled pleasure” ity. When adopting a process focus, students
(e.g., Hofmann, Kotabe, & Luhmann, 2013). should be better able to block out that they are
Delay of gratification. When adopting an procrastinating and enjoy the activity more in
outcome focus, alternative activities might lose absolute terms and to the same extent they nor-
their appeal of being immediately rewarding mally do. In addition, the more students focus
(e.g., Sirois, 2016). Freund and colleagues on the process of the alternative, the larger the
(2012) have linked goal focus to cognitive con- difference between the perception of the alter-
strual level (Trope & Liberman, 2010) by con- native and the focal activity should be. That is,
necting outcome focus to more abstract and students with a high process focus should per-
process focus to more concrete representations ceive alternative activities as more immediately
of goals. If a goal is construed more abstractly, rewarding and more pleasant than the focal ac-
its perceived distance increases (Liberman, tivity.
Trope, McCrea, & Sherman, 2007). Thus, with Importance. We expected a similar, yet
a higher outcome focus, the distance of the weaker effect of adopting a stronger process
reward linked to a given alternative activity focus on importance than of adopting a stronger
should increase, thereby reducing the discrep- outcome focus. A stronger process focus is
ancy between the alternative and the focal ac- likely associated with an increase in the salience
tivity that students usually associate with a de- of the effort a person puts into goal pursuit
layed reward (e.g., a good grade at the end of (Freund & Hennecke, 2015). This, in turn,
the semester). should increase the perceived value or impor-
6 KAFTAN AND FREUND
tance of the activity (Kruger, Wirtz, Van Boven, and stress may be positive, negative, or the
& Altermatt, 2004). Thus, if alternative activi- opposing effects may nullify each other.
ties are effortful (e.g., cleaning, working out) To test the proposed associations, we as-
and the effort of the activity comes into the fore sessed procrastination in a real-life study situa-
when adopting a process focus, the alternative tion over the course of 14 weeks with students
activity might also be perceived as more similar working on their bachelor’s theses. Participants
to the focal activity in terms of importance and were asked to rate different activities at baseline
compared with the general rating of the same in terms of importance and pleasantness. They
activity (i.e., the baseline rating of the activity provided adjustable individual time windows
when not procrastinating). during which they planned to work on their
Guilt. We hypothesized that a stronger pro- theses. During these time windows, we sent
cess focus is negatively related to guilt. Again, them a questionnaire and asked them to report
in line with an emotion regulation perspective their current activity and to rate the alternative
on procrastination (e.g., Pychyl & Sirois, 2016), and focal activity on various dimensions. This
a higher process focus or being absorbed in design allowed us to investigate how students
alternative activities might make people tempo- perceived activities in absolute terms, relative to
rarily “forget” about the fact that they are pro- baseline (for importance and pleasantness), and
crastinating and lower feelings of guilt (Sirois, relative to the thesis.
2014). Additionally, the assumed increased sa-
lience of the invested effort when engaged in Method
effortful alternative activities may promote the
experience of doing something important and Sample
also reduce feelings of guilt.
Motivation. A higher process focus should The study targeted bachelor’s degree students
who shared the goal of submitting a bachelor’s
be associated with a higher motivation to en-
thesis in about three to four months. Participants
gage in alternative activities. The hypothesized
were recruited via advertisements in Internet
increases in importance, pleasantness, and the
forums (e.g., University of Zurich students’ fo-
reduction in guilt are all factors that should
rums) and mailing lists of different universities
contribute to a high motivation. Relative to the in the German-speaking part of Switzerland,
focal activity, focusing more strongly on the Austria, and Germany. The recruitment adver-
process should be associated with a higher mo- tisement included a link to an online baseline
tivation to engage in alternative activities. questionnaire, which was created and published
Stress. There are two alternative hypothe- using an online questionnaire tool (SoSci Sur-
ses with regard to the relationship between pro- vey; see www.soscisurvey.de).
cess focus and experienced stress. On the one To determine the sample size, we used the
hand, a higher process focus might decrease the simr package (Green, MacLeod, & Alday,
awareness of doing the “wrong thing” and 2016) in R to run Monte Carlo simulations.
thereby lower feelings of guilt. Moreover, when Given that this is the first study exploring the
engaging in the alternative activity is so absorb- relationship between goal focus and activity
ing that it is not perceived as threatening the perceptions, we took a conservative approach
desired outcome of the focal activity, stress and assumed a small effect size of 0.15 (i.e.,
should also decrease (Folkman & Lazarus, size of fixed effects). The simulations suggested
1985). On the other hand, a higher process focus that the conventional power level of 80% is only
has been suggested to go hand in hand with a attained once the sample size approaches N ⫽
higher perceived investment and monitoring be- 100. Hence, we aimed at a final sample of at
havior (Freund & Hennecke, 2015). As elabo- least 100 participants, oversampling by approx-
rated above, the effort of the activity might imately 20% to account for potential dropouts.
come into the fore when adopting a process The original sample consisted of 118 bachelor’s
focus. Effort, in turn, can be positively associ- students. We excluded n ⫽ 13 participants (who
ated with stress (Vasalampi, Salmela-Aro, & had multiple accounts, only completed the base-
Nurmi, 2010). Depending on which effect is line questionnaire, did not fill out any question-
stronger, the association between process focus naire in time, or canceled the thesis after 1
week), leaving a total of N ⫽ 105 students (82% Participants indicated the date on which they
women) aged 21 to 31 years (M ⫽ 23.30, SD ⫽ intended to submit their theses. This allowed us
2.00). Most of the participants were from Swit- to determine the start of the weekly assessment
zerland (73.3%), and the rest from Austria period for every participant, that is, 14 weeks
(13.3%), and Germany (13.3%). Most participants before the indicated date of submission. Partic-
were psychology students (41.9%); all other ma- ipants received a questionnaire once a week on
jors were mentioned by fewer than five partici- the indicated “writing day” in the middle of the
pants (total: 58.1%). The high proportion of fe- indicated time window followed by an SMS
male students in the sample reflects the ratio of prompt. Participants were asked to fill out the
male to female students in psychology and the questionnaire on their smartphone or computer
social sciences in German-speaking countries. as soon as possible and no later than 90 min
after the SMS prompt. In this questionnaire,

Procedure participants indicated what they were currently
doing. When they responded that they were
The method of choice to collect subjective working on the thesis, they were asked to rate
states in real time and avoid retrospective biases this activity on various dimensions (e.g., impor-
is the use of electronic diaries to assess self- tance). When they responded that they were not
reported thoughts, emotions, and behaviors working on the thesis, which we defined as a
while the participant carries out daily activities procrastination episode, they were asked to list
(Ebner-Priemer & Trull, 2009). In this study, the alternative activity and rate the activity as
we used a combination of a time-based and event- well as the intended activity of working on the
based sampling strategy (see Shiffman, 2007, for bachelor’s thesis on the same dimensions. Fi-
an overview of different strategies). The study nally, participants rated their mood, the subjec-
consisted of 16 measurement occasions and tive distance to the deadline of the thesis sub-
started with a baseline questionnaire. In this ques- mission, what they intended to do after finishing
tionnaire, participants responded to basic demo- the questionnaire and for how long. Addition-
graphic questions, filled out an adapted version of ally, they evaluated their progress in the past
the Pure Procrastination Scale (Krause & Freund, week on various dimensions not relevant for
2014a; Steel, 2010), which measures trait procras- this paper. After submission of their theses,
tination, and the Academic Procrastination State participants completed the final questionnaire
Inventory (Schouwenburg, 1995; German transla- (also not relevant for this paper).
tion by Helmke & Schrader, 2000). In addition, Participants who responded to all question-
participants rated 22 categories of activities de- naires in time were reimbursed with 40 Swiss
rived from a comprehensive pretest with an inde- francs or euros. Participants who missed ques-
pendent sample (e.g., sports, eating, and chores) tionnaires were reimbursed proportionally
on the dimensions under investigation in this (M ⫽ 27.60 Swiss francs).
study (e.g., importance).
Participants were asked to indicate the like- Response Rate and Data Handling
lihood of writing their theses for every day of
the week by allocating a total of 100 points to This study was part of a longitudinal project
one or different days of the week. Based on on procrastination. Data were gathered from
these likelihood ratings, participants chose the procrastination and nonprocrastination episodes
day on which they were most likely to work on (i.e., when students were writing their theses).
the thesis and indicated a time window in which For this article, we only considered data from
they planned to do so. Because of the possibility procrastination episodes (n ⫽ 643).
that people want to change their plans or have to All 105 participants filled out the baseline
do so due to external circumstances, we allowed questionnaire. Overall, we sent out a total of
participants to change their individual time win- n ⫽ 1,203 weekly questionnaires, n ⫽ 812 of
dows as often as they wanted over the course of which were completed in time (i.e., within 90
the study. However, they were asked to let us min), n ⫽ 120 too late, and 271 not at all. This
know about their desired change in plans at least response rate can be considered normal for an
one day in advance to avoid short-term changes experience sampling study (Pychyl et al., 2000).
in plans characteristic for procrastination. Results did not change substantially when in-
8 KAFTAN AND FREUND
cluding questionnaires in the analyses that were “How important is this activity for you in gen-
filled out too late. Therefore, we used all avail- eral?”) of activities were assessed in the base-
able data to increase statistical power and, line questionnaire. The response scale ranged
thereby, the reliability of the results without from 1 (very unpleasant/very unimportant) to 7
biasing them. The average response time was (very pleasant/very important). During procras-
M ⫽ 19.36 min (SD ⫽ 36.39). tination episodes, activity characteristics and
To maximize the number of participants in goal focus were assessed as they related to the
the study, we also included participants whose current activity. First, participants were
submission date was less than 14 weeks away. prompted to indicate what they were currently
This led to a larger number of completed ques- doing, which they then rated on the following
tionnaires in the second half of the study (n ⫽ six dimensions: pleasantness (i.e., “How pleas-
541) in comparison with the first half (n ⫽ 391). ant is this activity?”), importance, stressfulness,
The smallest number of questionnaires (n ⫽ 34) guilt, delay of gratification (i.e., “Is this activity
was completed at the first of the 14 weekly immediately rewarding or will it pay off later in
measurement occasions. The largest number of time [in hours, weeks, days, or months]?”), and
questionnaires (n ⫽ 82) was filled out at the the motivation to engage in this activity. In
12th measurement occasion. For each measure- addition, but not included in this analysis, par-
ment occasion, an average of n ⫽ 66.57 of the ticipants also rated their current activity in terms
sample filled out the questionnaire. Considering of the guilt they might feel had they not engaged
only the data from procrastination episodes in it, facilitation with regard to the thesis, con-
(n ⫽ 643), n ⫽ 547 questionnaires were filled flict with regard to the thesis, difficulty, and
out in time, and n ⫽ 96 too late. There were urgency. For the dimension delay of gratifica-
more questionnaires from the second than the tion the response scale ranged from 1 (immedi-
first half of the study (n ⫽ 381 vs. 262). Be- ately rewarding) to 7 (rewarding later). All
cause we had more observations from the sec- other ratings used a 7-point rating scale ranging
ond (vs. first) half of the study, we also sepa- from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Participants
rately analyzed the data for both halves. None used the same scale to rate their outcome focus
of the main effects were conflicting (i.e., point- (i.e., “To what extent are you focusing on what
ing in opposite directions). However, slightly you want to achieve with this activity?”) and
more effects reached significance in the second process focus (i.e., “To what extent are you
half (n ⫽ 56 vs. 45), reflecting the larger num- focusing on the activity itself?”). Students also
ber of observations in the second half of the rated the bachelor’s thesis on the same dimen-
study. On average, 45.93 students procrasti- sions (excluding the items for facilitation and
nated at any given measurement occasion. conflict).
Fifteen participants submitted their theses be-
fore the deadline. Hence, we restructured the data Statistical Analyses
of these participants according to the actual sub-
mission date. Neither trait procrastination, ␤ ⫽ Between- and within-person analyses.
⫺.03, t(103) ⫽ ⫺0.33, p ⫽ .74, nor state procras- All intraclass correlation coefficients were
tination, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.18, t(103) ⫽ ⫺1.80, p ⫽ .07, higher than .05, requiring multilevel analyses
predicted the number of completed question- (Bliese, 2009). Overall, 14 multilevel analyses
naires. Due to the small number of dropouts, we were conducted. Multilevel models can handle
were unable to test for selective attrition. More- missing data and therefore maximize the utility
over, neither trait procrastination, ␤ ⫽ .12, of existing data (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006).
t(103) ⫽ 1.27, p ⫽ .21, nor state procrastination, As both predictors, process and outcome fo-
␤ ⫽ ⫺.07, t(103) ⫽ ⫺0.68, p ⫽ .50, measured at cus, varied within as well as between persons,
baseline predicted the number of writing sessions. we followed the procedure recommended by
Bolger and Laurenceau (2013) to partition the
Measures variables into their constituent within-subjects
(within process focus/within outcome focus)
Activity characteristics and goal focus. and between-subjects (between process focus/
Baseline pleasantness (i.e., “How pleasant is between outcome focus) components. This par-
this activity for you?”) and importance (i.e., tition yielded a total of four variables, two
(Level 2) between-persons variables and two To construct the dependent variable for the
(Level 1) person-centered variables that varied evaluation of alternative activities (e.g., watch-
at each measurement occasion. Level 2 vari- ing TV) relative to the focal activity (i.e., bach-
ables represent the score of participants relative elor’s thesis) during procrastination episodes,
to the sample. Level 1 variables represent the we subtracted the rating of the bachelor’s thesis
scores of participants with respect to their own from the rating of the alternative activity. A
mean across all measurement occasions. We positive (vs. negative) value indicated that the
also considered possible interactions between person perceived the alternative activity as, for
the two foci at both levels of analysis (i.e., example, more (vs. less) important than the
within- and between-subjects interaction). Al- bachelor’s thesis in a particular procrastination
though we were not interested in time trends in episode. The analyses were again based on all
this paper, we followed the recommendation of difference scores on a dimension over all activ-
Bolger and Laurenceau (2013) and included the ities. This allowed us to test whether, during
centered week number as a fixed effect in the procrastination episodes, alternative activities,
model to control for potential effects of time. in general, were perceived differently than the
The analyses allowed random intercepts and bachelor’s thesis, and whether these differences
random slopes. To account for within-person could be predicted by goal focus.
variability in goal focus, we included random
effects for both goal foci only at the within- Results
person level to reduce the number of random
effects to be estimated. Preliminary Analyses
Multilevel analyses were conducted with R
(Version 3.3.1; R Development Core Team, At the time of prompting, participants were
2016), using the nlme and lme4 packages (Bates asked to indicate their current activity. They
et al., 2016; Pinheiro et al., 2016). We calcu- indicated that they were working on their bach-
lated a likelihood-ratio-based adjusted pseudo elor’s theses in a total of 289 instances (31%),
R2 for each model as implemented in the and that they did something else in a total of 644
MuMIn package (Bartoń, 2016). This statistic instances (69%). This procrastination rate is
offers the proportion of the variance explained substantially higher than the rate (i.e., 36%)
by comparing models including the explanatory obtained in the experience sampling study of
variables with models without them. Pychyl et al. (2000), and may be explained by
Calculation of dependent variables. To the fact that we did not prompt participants
construct the dependent variable for changes in randomly throughout the day but at a predeter-
importance and pleasantness during procrasti- mined critical time. Most of the alternative ac-
nation episodes as compared with baseline, the tivities fell into the category of studying (i.e.,
indicated alternative activities were coded by university-related activities not related to the
two independent raters (Cohen’s ␬ ⫽ .94) into bachelor’s thesis; n ⫽ 148), eating/cooking
the 22 categories of activities the students had (n ⫽ 110), multimedia (n ⫽ 54), nonacademic
already rated at baseline. We then subtracted the work (n ⫽ 50), sleeping/relaxing (n ⫽ 40),
individual baseline value for an activity from shopping (n ⫽ 33), sports, and chores (both n ⫽
the individual value indicated during a procras- 22). All other categories were mentioned fewer
tination episode. A positive (vs. negative) value than 20 times.
indicated that the person perceived the alterna- Inspection of subject-by-subject scatterplots
tive activity as, for example, more (vs. less) indicated that three participants had reported
pleasant during a procrastination episode when two or fewer instances of procrastination over
compared with baseline. The analyses were the 14 weeks. Their data could not be used for
based on all difference scores on a dimension the estimation of within-subject changes. Addi-
over all activities. This allowed us to test tionally, in the subset of observations from pro-
whether alternative activities, in general, were crastination episodes, one data point was iden-
perceived differently during procrastination ep- tified as an outlier and excluded from the
isodes as compared with baseline, and to test analyses.
whether these differences could be predicted by In order to get an impression of the variability
goal focus. of goal focus, we calculated individual means
10 KAFTAN AND FREUND
for each participant for goal focus during pro- related positively with the average guilt re-
crastination episodes and nonprocrastination ported during procrastination episodes (trait:
episodes; process focus during procrastination r ⫽ .37, p ⬍ .001; state: r ⫽ .42, p ⬍ .001).
episodes did not correlate significantly with Moreover, students scoring higher on state pro-
process focus during nonprocrastination epi- crastination evaluated the alternative activities
sodes, r ⫽ .13, p ⫽ .24. Regarding outcome during procrastinating episodes as less impor-
focus, there was a positive correlation, r ⫽ .36, tant, r ⫽ ⫺.36, p ⬍ .001.
p ⬍ .001. Together with substantial mean intra-
individual standard deviations for process and Prediction of Activity Evaluations
outcome focus during procrastination episodes
(process focus: M ⫽ 1.67; outcome focus: M ⫽ In the following, we describe the significant
2.01), these findings indicate that goal focus is results for each dimension regarding goal focus
dynamic and changes within persons. as a predictor of different activity characteristics
Outcome and process focus correlated signif- (i.e., absolute, relative to baseline, and relative
icantly, r ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .001 during procrastination to the focal activity). Overall, we observed
episodes; this was the case at the within-, r ⫽ slightly stronger and/or more associations at the
.26, p ⬍ .001 and between-person level, r ⫽ within-person (vs. between-person) level. Due
.30, p ⫽ .002. That is, on days on which par- to space constraints, we focus on the within-
ticipants focused more on the outcome of alter- person effects with the exception of importance,
native activities, they also tended to focus more for which we also describe the significant be-
on the process (i.e., within-person correlation). tween-person effects to exemplify their inter-
Participants with a higher average outcome fo- pretation. All nonsignificant effects and the re-
cus tended to have a higher average process maining between-person effects can be found in
focus (i.e., between-person correlation). Bivari- the corresponding tables. There were no or
ate correlations between goal focus and charac- small time effects in most of the analyses. Be-
teristics of alternative activities are displayed in cause time effects are not the focus of this
Table 2. Bivariate correlations between charac- paper, we do not address them in the descrip-
teristics of alternative activities and descriptive tions below.
statistics are displayed in Table 3. Trait and Importance. We predicted that both out-
state procrastination measured at baseline cor- come and process focus are positively associ-
ated with importance. The multilevel analysis
with absolute importance as dependent variable
and goal focus at the between and within-person
Table 2
levels as independent variables revealed signif-
Bivariate Correlations Between Goal Focus and
icant main effects for outcome focus at both
Characteristics of Alternative Activities During
levels (Table 4). Specifically, students who fo-
Procrastination Episodes (Pearson Product
cused more on the outcome reported alternative
Moment Correlation)
activities as more important (between-person
Withina Betweenb effect), and students reported alternative activ-
Outcome Process Outcome Process ities to be more important on days on which
Dimension focus focus focus focus they focused more on the outcome (within-
person effect). This effect of outcome focus was
Importance .42ⴱⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .25ⴱc .15
Pleasantness ⫺.38ⴱⴱⴱ .06 ⫺.44ⴱⴱⴱ .08 even slightly more pronounced on days when
Guilt ⫺.39ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.19 ⫺.02 students also focused more on the process
Stress .44ⴱⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱⴱ .18 (within-person interaction).
Motivation ⫺.15ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱc .20ⴱc The multilevel analysis regarding activity rat-
Delay of gratification .47ⴱⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱ .56ⴱⴱⴱ .06 ings relative to baseline revealed that students
a
Within-person correlations represent correlations (aver- who focused more on the outcome reported
aged across participants) between a person’s time-specific alternative activities as more important than at
deviations on two variables. b Between-person correla- baseline (between-person effect), and students
tions represent correlations between individual means on
two variables. c Association did not remain significant af- reported alternative activities as more important
ter Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. than at baseline on days when they focused
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001. more on the outcome (within-person effect; see
Table 3
Bivariate Correlations Between Characteristics of Alternative Activities as Well
as Descriptive Statistics
Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Importance
2. Pleasantness ⫺.07
3. Guilt ⫺.56ⴱⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱⴱ
4. Stress .19ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.64ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱ
5. Motivation .14ⴱⴱⴱ .70ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.42ⴱⴱⴱ
6. Delay of gratification .22ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.49ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱⴱ
M 5.51 5.09 2.35 2.85 5.02 3.07

SD 1.70 1.82 1.74 1.95 1.69 2.15

Note. N ⫽ 643.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
Table 4). Similarly, the multilevel analysis in- higher process focus. That is, on days, on which
vestigating how students evaluated the impor- participants focused particularly on the process,
tance of the alternative activities relative to the they perceived the alternative activity as equally
focal activity (see Table 4) revealed a significant pleasant as they generally do. In regard to the
negative intercept, indicating that students with evaluation of alternative activities relative to the
an average outcome and process focus on a focal activity (see Table 5), there was a signif-
typical day in the middle of the study perceived icant positive intercept, indicating that students
the bachelor’s thesis as more important than the with an average outcome and process focus on
alternative activities. However, on days when a typical day perceived the alternative activities
students focused more on the outcome of the as more pleasant than working on the bachelor’s
alternative activities in which they were cur- thesis. Confirming our hypotheses, this differ-
rently engaged, they perceived them as equally ence was more pronounced on days when stu-
important as the bachelor’s thesis (within- dents focused more on the process of the alter-
person effect). The effect of outcome focus was native activities in which they were currently
more pronounced on days on which they also engaged. In contrast, focusing more on the out-
focused more on the process (within-person in- come made students perceive these activities as
teraction). Students who, on average, focused nearly as aversive as working on the bachelor’s
more on the process also reported the alternative thesis.
activities to be nearly as important as the bach- Guilt. Supporting our hypotheses, the re-
elor’s thesis (between-person effect). sults presented in Table 6 show that participants
Pleasantness. Consistent with our hypoth- reported less guilt on days on which they fo-
eses and as depicted in Table 5, students re- cused more on the outcome. A weaker but still
ported alternative activities as less pleasant on significant effect was found for process focus
days on which they focused more on the out- (absolute scores). In addition, the analysis re-
come, and more pleasant when they focused garding activity evaluations relative to the focal
more on the process (absolute scores). When activity revealed a significant positive intercept,
comparing students’ ratings of alternative activ- indicating that students with an average out-
ities to their baseline ratings of the same activ- come and process focus on a typical day per-
ities, the analysis revealed a significant inter- ceived the alternative activities as more guilt-
cept, indicating that participants with an inducing than the focal activity (see Table 6).
average outcome and process focus on a typical However, this difference disappeared (i.e.,
day perceived the same activities as less pleas- moderately high outcome focus) and the effect
ant when they were procrastinating compared even reversed (i.e., high outcome focus) on days
with baseline (see Table 5). In line with our when students focused more on the outcome of
hypothesis, a higher outcome focus was associ- the alternative activities. That is, when students
ated with an even more pronounced difference. focused much more on the outcome than they
In contrast, the difference was lower with a did on average, they reported the alternative
12
Table 4
Parameter Estimates for Multilevel Model of Importance as a Function of Goal Focus
Absolute Relative to baseline Relative to focal activity
95% CI 95% CI 95% CI
Fixed effects B SE t LL UL B SE t LL UL B SE t LL UL
ⴱ ⴱ
Intercept 5.45 .09 62.58 5.27 5.62 ⫺.15 .11 ⫺1.40 ⫺.36 .07 ⫺.88 .12 ⫺7.45 ⫺1.11 ⫺.66
Time ⫺.01 .01 ⫺.42 ⫺.04 .03 ⫺.01 .02 ⫺.46 ⫺.04 .03 .01 .02 .41 ⫺.03 .05
Within PF .08 .05 1.66 ⫺.02 .18 .001 .05 .03 ⫺.10 .10 .03 .06 .47 ⫺.09 .16
Within OF .30ⴱ .04 7.08 .21 .38 .26ⴱ .05 5.40 .16 .36 .33ⴱ .05 6.48 .23 .43
Within PF ⫻ OF .04ⴱ .02 2.39 .01 .08 .02 .02 1.06 ⫺.02 .07 .06ⴱ .02 2.79 .02 .10
Between PF .08 .07 1.15 ⫺.06 .23 ⫺.11 .10 ⫺1.19 ⫺.30 .08 .21ⴱ .10 2.12 .02 .39
Between OF .16ⴱ .06 2.57 .04 .29 .16ⴱ .08 1.97 .01 .34 .03 .09 .29 ⫺.15 .20
Between PF ⫻ OF .02 .05 .40 ⫺.09 .12 ⫺.04 .06 ⫺.65 ⫺.17 .08 .03 .07 .46 ⫺.11 .17
95% CI 95% CI 95% CI
Random effects Variance SD LL UL Variance SD LL UL Variance SD LL UL
Level 2a
KAFTAN AND FREUND
Intercept .35 .59 .44 .75 .63 .79 .59 .99 .69 .83 .63 1.05
Within PF .07 .26 .16 .36 .04 .20 .06 .34 .11 .34 .18 .48
Within OF .07 .26 .17 .35 .07 .27 .16 .37 .08 .28 .19 .40
Level 1a
Residual 1.82 1.35 1.24 1.42 2.16 1.47 1.35 1.57 2.66 1.63 1.51 1.73
Pseudo R2b .22 .13 .17
Note. N ⫽ 102 persons, 14 weeks, 643 observations. Controlling for time (mean-centered). PF ⫽ process focus; OF ⫽ outcome focus; CI ⫽ confidence interval; LL ⫽ lower limit;
UL ⫽ upper limit.
a
Random effects represent within-person effects. b Likelihood ratio based adjusted pseudo R2 (Bartoń, 2016) represents proportional reductions in the variance-component residual
in comparison with model without explanatory variables.
ⴱ
95% CI does not include 0. CIs estimated using bootstrapping (1,000 simulations; normal approximation).
Table 5
Parameter Estimates for Multilevel Model of Pleasantness as a Function of Goal Focus
Absolute Relative to baseline Relative to focal activity
95% CI 95% CI 95% CI
Fixed effects B SE t LL UL B SE t LL UL B SE t LL UL
ⴱ ⴱ ⴱ
Intercept 5.02 .09 55.18 4.84 5.20 ⫺.31 .08 ⫺3.98 ⫺.47 ⫺.15 1.17 .14 8.26 .90 1.48
Time .03 .02 1.87 ⫺.003 .06 .01 .02 .37 ⫺.02 .04 .04ⴱ .02 2.05 .0003 .08
Within PF .17ⴱ .05 3.49 .07 .28 .12ⴱ .04 2.66 .03 .20 .14ⴱ .05 2.69 .03 .23
Within OF ⫺.34ⴱ .04 ⫺8.95 ⫺.42 ⫺.27 ⫺.10ⴱ .03 ⫺2.94 ⫺.17 ⫺.03 ⫺.34ⴱ .05 ⫺6.53 ⫺.43 ⫺.23
Within PF ⫻ OF .01 .02 .45 ⫺.03 .05 .03 .02 1.79 ⫺.01 .07 .003 .02 .16 ⫺.04 .05
Between PF .30ⴱ .08 3.66 .13 .45 .06 .07 .92 ⫺.07 .21 .15 .13 1.19 ⫺.11 .38
Between OF ⫺.37ⴱ .07 ⫺5.26 ⫺.51 ⫺.23 ⫺.09 .06 ⫺1.52 ⫺.21 .02 ⫺.58ⴱ .11 ⫺5.22 ⫺.82 ⫺.35
Between PF ⫻ OF .09 .05 1.62 ⫺.02 .19 .09 .05 2.00 ⫺.003 .19 .16 .09 1.84 ⫺.01 .32
95% CI 95% CI 95% CI
Random effects Variance SD LL UL Variance SD LL UL Variance SD LL UL
Level 2a
Intercept .36 .60 .43 .77 .16 .40 .22 .58 1.16 1.08 .86 1.31
Within PF .07 .26 .14 .38 .02 .16 .06 .28 .01 .12 .02 .28
Within OF .03 .18 .06 .27 .01 .08 .02 .20 .07 .27 .14 .39
Level 1a
Residual 2.04 1.43 1.33 1.51 2.01 1.42 1.30 1.49 2.92 1.71 1.58 1.82
Pseudo R2b .22 .05 .16
MOTIVATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON PROCRASTINATION
Note. N ⫽ 102 persons, 14 weeks, 643 observations. Controlling for time (mean-centered). PF ⫽ process focus; OF ⫽ outcome focus; CI ⫽ confidence interval; LL ⫽ lower limit;
UL ⫽ upper limit.
a
Random effects represent within-person effects. b Likelihood ratio based adjusted pseudo R2 (Bartoń, 2016) represents proportional reductions in the variance-component residual
in comparison with model without explanatory variables.
ⴱ
13
Table 6
Parameter Estimates for Multilevel Model of Guilt as a Function of Goal Focus
Absolute Relative to focal activity
95% CI 95% CI
Fixed effects B SE t LL UL B SE t LL UL
ⴱ ⴱ
Intercept 2.49 .10 24.37 2.27 2.68 .50 .14 3.51 .22 .78
Time ⫺.04ⴱ .01 ⫺2.84 ⫺.07 ⫺.01 ⫺.06ⴱ .02 ⫺2.62 ⫺.10 ⫺.01
Within PF ⫺.09ⴱ .04 ⫺2.36 ⫺.16 ⫺.01 ⫺.09 .05 ⫺1.86 ⫺.20 .01
Within OF ⫺.27ⴱ .03 ⫺7.68 ⫺.34 ⫺.20 ⫺.30ⴱ .04 ⫺7.07 ⫺.39 ⫺.21
Within PF ⫻ OF ⫺.02 ⫺.003 ⫺.12 ⫺.05
.01 .02 .85 .05 .02 .04

⫺.05 ⫺.55 ⫺.20 ⫺.14 ⫺1.13 ⫺.41
Between PF .08 .12 .13 .09

Between OF ⫺.10 .08 ⫺1.36 ⫺.25 .05 ⫺.15 .11 ⫺1.37 ⫺.37 .06
Between PF ⫻ OF ⫺.12ⴱ .06 ⫺2.07 ⫺.23 ⫺.001 ⫺.09 .09 ⫺1.00 ⫺.26 .09
95% CI 95% CI
Random effects Variance SD LL UL Variance SD LL UL
Level 2a
Intercept .58 .76 .59 .94 1.11 1.05 .83 1.33
Within PF .005 .07 .01 .20 .01 .10 .02 .27
Within OF .03 .16 .09 .24 .01 .08 .02 .24
Level 1a
Residual 1.97 1.40 1.30 1.47 3.38 1.84 1.70 1.93
Pseudo R2b .19 .13
Note. N ⫽ 102 persons, 14 weeks, 643 observations. Controlling for time (mean-centered). PF ⫽ process focus; OF ⫽
outcome focus; CI ⫽ confidence interval; LL ⫽ lower limit; UL ⫽ upper limit.
a
Random effects represent within-person effects. b Likelihood ratio based adjusted pseudo R2 (Bartoń, 2016) represents
proportional reductions in the variance-component residual in comparison with model without explanatory variables.
ⴱ
activities to cause less guilt than they associated alternative activities on days on which they
with the focal activity. focused more on the outcome, but more moti-
Stress. Confirming our hypothesis regard- vated when they focused more on the process
ing the association between outcome focus and (absolute scores are presented in Table 8). The
stress, we found that students reported alterna- significant interaction at the within-person level
tive activities to be more stressful on days when indicates that the motivational effect of a higher
they focused more on the outcome (absolute process focus was stronger on days on which
scores are presented in Table 7). Table 7 shows students also focused more on the outcome. The
similar results regarding activity ratings relative to analysis comparing ratings of alternative activ-
the focal activity. The significant negative inter- ities to the focal activity revealed similar re-
cept indicates that students with an average out- sults. The significant positive intercept in Table
come and process focus on a typical day perceived 8 indicates that students with an average out-
the alternative activities as less stressful than the come and process focus on a typical day were
focal activity. However, this difference decreased more motivated to engage in alternative activi-
on days when students focused more on the out- ties than in the focal activity. This difference
come of the alternative activities. increased on days on which students focused
Motivation. We predicted a positive asso- more on the process, and decreased on days on
ciation between process focus and students’ mo- which they focused more on the outcome of the
tivation to be engaged in alternative activities. alternative activities.
With regard to the effects of outcome focus, we Delay of gratification. In line with our hy-
had two alternative hypotheses (i.e., we ex- potheses, students reported alternative activities
pected either a positive or negative association). to have a delayed reward on days on which they
The multilevel analysis revealed that students focused more on the outcome (absolute scores
reported to be less motivated to engage in the are presented in Table 9). Furthermore, the anal-
Table 7
Parameter Estimates for Multilevel Model of Stress as a Function of Goal Focus
95% CI 95% CI
ⴱ ⴱ
Intercept 2.92 .10 30.31 2.73 3.11 ⫺2.08 .15 ⫺13.96 ⫺2.38 ⫺1.80
Time ⫺.02 .02 ⫺.99 ⫺.05 .02 ⫺.03 .02 ⫺1.12 ⫺.07 .02
Within PF .03 .05 .51 ⫺.07 .12 .02 .06 .29 ⫺.10 .13
Within OF .38ⴱ .04 9.78 .30 .46 .44ⴱ .05 8.79 .39 .53
Within PF ⫻ OF ⫺.01 ⫺.02
.03 .02 1.32 .06 .03 .02 1.17 .07

⫺.12 ⫺1.35 ⫺.29 ⫺.17
Between PF .09 .05 .10 .14 .75 .40

Between OF .33ⴱ .07 4.50 .19 .48 .27ⴱ .12 2.34 .03 .49
Between PF ⫻ OF ⫺.15ⴱ .06 ⫺2.66 ⫺.27 ⫺.04 ⫺.19ⴱ .09 ⫺2.07 ⫺.37 ⫺.005
95% CI 95% CI
Level 2a
Intercept .34 .58 .41 .82 1.21 1.10 .85 1.35
Within PF .06 .25 .15 .40 .04 .20 .03 .36
Within OF .02 .15 .07 .32 .04 .19 .06 .33
Level 1a
Residual 2.42 1.55 1.45 1.67 3.59 1.90 1.75 2.01
Pseudo R2b .23 .18
a
ⴱ
ysis regarding the evaluation of alternative ac- cus. Overall, focusing on the outcome of alter-
tivities relative to the focal activity revealed a native activities was more strongly related to the
significant intercept. The negative intercept in perception of alternative activities than adopt-
Table 9 indicates that, on average, students on a ing a process focus. The stronger effect of out-
typical day perceived the alternative activities come compared with process focus might be
as more immediately rewarding than the bach- due to an increased awareness that one procras-
elor’s thesis. However, on days, on which stu- tinates. In line with this assumption, we found
dents focused more on the outcome, the differ- that people perceive alternative activities as less
ence between alternative and focal activity pleasant, more stressful, and less immediately
decreased. rewarding when they focus more on the out-
come. In addition, the increased awareness of
Discussion one’s procrastination might intensify attempts
to justify procrastination. Consistent with this
Past research on procrastination has focused assumption, we found that an increase in out-
on characteristics of the focal goal and ne- come focus was associated with an increase of
glected the question of what people do and how the importance of alternative activities and
they perceive the activities in which they en- lower feelings of guilt. Additionally, students
gage instead. This was the focus of the current were less motivated to engage in alternative
study. The current study shows that students activities when they focused more on the out-
who procrastinate often engage in alternative come.
activities they deem important or pleasant at the We assumed that increases in process focus
time. We hypothesized and found that the eval- should allow students to better block out that
uation of the activities in which people engage they are procrastinating and thus be more “ab-
while procrastinating is modulated by goal fo- sorbed” in the activity (Sirois, 2014, p. 30). In
Table 8
Parameter Estimates for Multilevel Model of Motivation as a Function of Goal Focus
95% CI 95% CI
ⴱ ⴱ
Intercept 4.94 .08 60.13 4.78 5.10 .71 .15 4.58 .42 1.00
Time .02 .02 1.22 ⫺.01 .05 .07ⴱ .02 3.29 .03 .11
Within PF .27ⴱ .05 5.81 .18 .37 .29ⴱ .06 5.06 .18 .41
Within OF ⫺.19ⴱ .04 ⫺5.38 ⫺.26 ⫺.12 ⫺.23ⴱ .05 ⫺4.74 ⫺.33 ⫺.14
Within PF ⫻ OF .04ⴱ ⫺.02
.02 2.19 .004 .07 .02 .02 .96 .06

.30ⴱ .39ⴱ
Between PF .07 4.04 .15 .45 .14 2.81 .09 .70

Between OF ⫺.23ⴱ .06 ⫺3.62 ⫺.37 ⫺.11 ⫺.53ⴱ .12 ⫺4.31 ⫺.77 ⫺.28
Between PF ⫻ OF .08 .05 1.64 ⫺.01 .19 .28ⴱ .09 3.04 .11 .47
95% CI 95% CI
Level 2a
Intercept .23 .48 .29 .65 1.45 1.20 .95 1.44
Within PF .05 .23 .11 .34 .06 .24 .07 .39
Within OF .02 .13 .03 .23 .05 .22 .07 .34
Level 1a
Residual 2.06 1.43 1.32 1.53 3.08 1.76 1.62 1.88
Pseudo R2b .14 .14
a
ⴱ
line with this assumption, process focus was There was a weak positive correlation be-
positively associated with pleasantness and mo- tween outcome and process focus. There were
tivation, and negatively with guilt. For both only a few weak interactions between the two
foci, results largely converged at both the with- foci on most dimensions considered in this
in- and the between-subjects level, and were study. Moreover, the effects of our predictors
consistent across absolute and relative to base- had the same direction for some characteristics
line evaluations. (e.g., guilt) but opposite directions for others
Comparing the perception of alternative ac- (e.g., pleasantness). Thus, it seems that process
tivities relative to the focal activity (working on and outcome focus largely exert distinct influ-
the bachelor’s thesis), students with a higher ences on how students perceive activities.
outcome focus perceived alternative activities Given that time trends in this study were weak
as equally important as the bachelor’s thesis, or mostly nonexistent, changes in goal focus
less guilt-evoking, and almost as stressful as the seem better suited to predict the dynamic
thesis. They still reported the bachelor’s thesis changes in activity evaluations than a time-
to be associated with a more delayed reward dependent process.
than the alternative activity but, with a higher
outcome focus, the difference decreased. This Toward a Dynamic Understanding
set of results might explain the impaired moti- of Procrastination
vation that we observed when outcome focus
was high. In contrast, when students focused Procrastination can only be fully understood
more on the process, they perceived the alter- when considering how people perceive the al-
native activities as more pleasant and were more ternative activities in which they engage while
motivated to engage in the alternatives. procrastinating. Qualifying the common as-
Table 9
Parameter Estimates for Multilevel Model of Delay of Gratification as a Function of Goal Focus
95% CI 95% CI
ⴱ ⴱ
Intercept 3.16 .10 30.48 2.97 3.37 ⫺2.11 .16 ⫺12.88 ⫺2.42 ⫺1.79
Time ⫺.05ⴱ .02 ⫺2.84 ⫺.09 ⫺.02 ⫺.01 .02 ⫺.53 ⫺.06 .03
Within PF ⫺.01 .06 ⫺.15 ⫺.12 .10 ⫺.04 .07 ⫺.55 ⫺.17 .10
Within OF .45ⴱ .04 10.70 .37 .54 .47ⴱ .05 8.74 .35 .57
Within PF ⫻ OF ⫺.02 ⫺.04
.02 .02 .92 .06 .01 .03 .38 .06

⫺.20ⴱ ⫺2.15 ⫺.38 ⫺.02 ⫺.25 ⫺1.70 ⫺.53
Between PF .09 .15 .06

Between OF .50ⴱ .08 6.29 .34 .67 .52ⴱ .13 4.07 .26 .76
Between PF ⫻ OF ⫺.08 .06 ⫺1.24 ⫺.20 .04 ⫺.25ⴱ .10 ⫺2.51 ⫺.44 ⫺.06
95% CI 95% CI
Level 2a
Intercept .45 .67 .48 .87 1.60 1.27 1.00 1.54
Within PF .09 .29 .14 .42 .10 .32 .13 .47
Within OF .03 .17 .04 .27 .05 .22 .07 .35
Level 1a
Residual 2.76 1.66 1.54 1.77 3.64 1.91 1.77 2.03
Pseudo R2b .27 .21
Note. N ⫽ 102 persons, 14 weeks, 643 observations. Controlling for time (mean-centered). High values on the dependent
variable indicate perceived later (vs. immediate) reward. PF ⫽ process focus; OF ⫽ outcome focus; CI ⫽ confidence
interval; LL ⫽ lower limit; UL ⫽ upper limit.
a
ⴱ
sumption that students procrastinate with activ- activities decreased with a higher outcome focus,
ities that are pleasant, we found that activities but increased with a higher process focus. The
that are “normally” seen as pleasant may be- decreased pleasantness might make it easier to
come less pleasant during procrastination epi- disengage from alternative activities and serve as a
sodes (i.e., “spoiled pleasure”; Hofmann et al., stop signal to procrastination. This is in line with
2013). Such changes can only be captured by the conceptualization of procrastination as a short-
moment-to-moment assessments of activity term emotion regulation strategy (Pychyl & Sirois,
characteristics. In addition, we observed 2016). If the alternative activity does not help to
slightly stronger and/or more associations at the repair the mood, people might be more likely to
within-person (vs. between-person) level, sug- abandon it and engage in the focal activity. How-
gesting that the pervasive approach to investi- ever, alternatively, they might disengage from the
gate between-person differences is limited in alternative activity and engage in yet another al-
improving our understanding of procrastination. ternative activity, and thus keep procrastinating. In
The main aim of this study was to investigate some cases, a higher outcome focus may also be
how goal focus is linked to activity characteristics less adaptive because it may be easier to justify
and affect while people are procrastinating. How- one’s procrastination when feeling bad (i.e., when
ever, perceiving activities differently and feeling perceiving the alternatives as less pleasant),
differently likely has important implications for which, in turn, might sustain procrastination.
further goal striving. One possible implication of
the results of this study is that a higher outcome Unexpected Findings
focus may be more adaptive than a higher process
focus. This might be due to the changes in per- There was only a weak negative association
ceived pleasantness: the perceived pleasantness of between process focus and guilt at the absolute
level, and no association when considering is an encouraging finding for exploring poten-
evaluations relative to the focal activity. Theo- tial moderators impacting these relationships
retical approaches link procrastination to guilt such as type of activity. In this study, we were
(e.g., Blunt & Pychyl, 2005) and have found interested in the relationships at an aggregated
empirical support (e.g., Pychyl et al., 2000). level and did not have enough observations to
However, recent research indicates that shame analyze the data at an activity level. Based on
may play a more significant role than guilt in the findings of this research, future studies may
procrastination (Giguère et al., 2016). The cur- focus only on one particular alternative activity
rent study did not include shame, so we could (e.g., social media) or a subset of activities (e.g.,
not explore whether process focus is associated very pleasant alternatives). On the one hand, a
with shame rather than guilt. However, we focus on one particular alternative activity
found moderate positive relationships between would allow for a more systematic comparison
self-reported procrastination at the beginning of between different individuals. Additionally,
the study and reported guilt during procrastina- having multiple measurement occasions in dif-
tion episodes. Based on this finding, it would be ferent goal phases would, for example, provide
interesting to investigate why this is the case. insights into the role of process and outcome
For instance, are low trait procrastinators “bet- focus for goal choice (e.g., “Should I work out
ter” at temporarily rationalizing their procrasti- now instead of working on my thesis?”) versus
nation (e.g., “self-indulgent reconstruals,” An- goal striving (e.g., “Now that I am working out,
derson, 2016, p. 51)? how long should I keep going?”; Steel & Wein-
Another unexpected finding was that process hardt, 2017). On the other hand, a focus on one
focus was associated with importance only in particular alternative activity may come at the
the form of a weak positive interaction with price of limited generalizability to other activi-
outcome focus at the within-person level. ties.
Freund and Hennecke (2012) have speculated The data were collected using self-report
that people focus on both the process and out- questionnaires, which lends the results subject
come of goal pursuit if a goal is subjectively to common method bias, may have increased
very important (which is why there is also a metacognitive awareness, or operated as a kind
positive correlation between process and out- of intervention by directing students’ awareness
come focus). In most cases, the alternative ac- to their procrastination behavior (e.g., Schmitz
tivity is less important than the focal activity & Wiese, 2006). Furthermore, we used single
although, as the current study has shown, people items to assess the constructs because we did
may evaluate the alternative activity temporar- not want to burden the participants with too
ily as more important during procrastination many items asking them to respond to weekly
episodes. Hence, outcome focus may be suffi- questionnaires over the period of 14 weeks, but
cient to explain increases in importance for al- this limits the reliability of the measures. Less
ternative activities, and process focus may only demanding studies may use multiple indicators.
explain unique variance in very important ac- Further studies using an experimental design
tivities. are needed because the current study is correla-
tional. As such, we cannot rule out the possi-
Limitations and Further Directions bility of an unmeasured time-varying third vari-
able, and we cannot establish causality. This
Despite the promising results of this attempt paper focused on one direction of possible cau-
at understanding the dynamics of procrastina- sation (i.e., effects of goal focus on activity
tion, we acknowledge the limitations of this perceptions). Conversely, activity characteris-
study. Although goal focus explained a substan- tics may influence goal focus. For example, a
tial amount of variance, the unexplained resid- process focus may create engagement but also
ual variance also highlights that we have iden- reflect that people are deeply engaged in an
tified but one out of a range of possible factors activity. To draw stronger causal conclusions,
related to the perception of activities during future experiments may confront people with a
procrastination episodes. Similarly, we ob- temptation and assess their perception of the
served some heterogeneity in the magnitude and temptation as well as their goal focus. In a
direction of the investigated associations. This second exposure to the same temptation, the
researchers could manipulate goal focus. Will different values from different points in time
participants with a stronger outcome focus per- (i.e., a priori perceptions of an activity, ratings
ceive the temptation differently than partici- while engaged in the activity, post hoc evalua-
pants with a stronger process focus? Con- tion of one’s behavior). However, more theory
versely, manipulating task characteristics (e.g., is needed to explain how these ratings should be
describing the same alternative activity as more integrated into an overall evaluation.
or less pleasant) and assessing subsequent goal
focus would shed light on the effects of activity Conclusions
characteristics on goal focus. However, al-
though such experimental approaches are nec- The current study constitutes an important
essary to determine cause and effect of relation- step in understanding the dynamics of academic
ships, they likely lack the ecological validity of procrastination in students’ lives by considering
experience sampling methods. alternative activities during procrastination epi-
Lastly, one might ask whether we actually sodes. We view the design as a major strength
measured procrastination. Delay does not equal of the study. While procrastination is often
procrastination (Klingsieck, 2013). In some viewed as a relatively stable personality-like
cases, short-term time adjustments of the target trait, Sirois and Pychyl (2016, p. 259) have
activity might have been necessary due to ex- recently stressed the need to also “view procras-
ternal circumstances (e.g., computer crash when tination as a situationally bound phenomena
wanting to work on the thesis). However, short [sic]” and called for studies with a more tem-
of such incidents, voluntarily deciding not to poral focus, such as experience sampling, “to
engage in the intended and important focal ac- better understand the processes underlying pro-
tivity but instead doing something else (that crastination.” The present study adhered to this
might seem gratifying or important at the time) call and assessed procrastination in an ecologi-
fits the very definition of procrastination (see cally valid way in the natural environment of
also the preference reversals described by Steel, students. The study took into account interindi-
2007). We maintain that—although we might vidual variability in planned writing windows
have incorrectly categorized a few incidents of and sent the questionnaires at times when the
true external obstructions of the targeted activ- students had planned and anticipated to be most
ity as procrastination—this would have in- likely engaged in writing their theses. The de-
creased error variance and, thereby, worked sign of the study also allowed us to analyze the
against finding any effects. Moreover, we be- between- and within-person effects separately,
lieve that the current approach is an ecologically providing further insights into the dynamics of
valid way of assessing procrastination while it procrastination. Whereas previous research has
takes place. largely focused on characteristics of the focal
Although challenging, it would be of great activity, we have focused on both perceptions of
significance to develop a method and criteria to the focal and alternative activities, and how they
distinguish between procrastination and justi- are related to each other during procrastination
fied shifts in priorities or strategic delay. Gen- episodes. The current study demonstrates that
eral criteria already exist (e.g., Klingsieck, goal focus is a relevant construct to understand
2013), and often it is simple to categorize a procrastination.
behavior as procrastination. However, some-
times there is a thin line between procrastination
and strategic delay; a line which is blurred by References
“the complex awareness” (Anderson, 2016, p.
55) of the focal activity and procrastinators’ Anderson, J. H. (2016). Structured nonprocrastina-
avoidance of “the truth about what they are tion: Scaffolding efforts to resist the temptation to
reconstrue unwarranted delay. In F. M. Sirois &
doing” (p. 51). In other words, how do we know T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination, health, and
whether a behavior should be categorized as well-being (1st ed., pp. 43– 63). London, UK: Ac-
procrastination when the self-deception of the ademic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
procrastinator is so effective that he or she tem- 12-802862-9.00003-7
porarily believes that his or her behavior is truly Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastina-
justified? Likely, it is necessary to integrate tion, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by
precommitment. Psychological Science, 13, 219– Freund, A. M., Hennecke, M., & Mustafić, M.
224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00441 (2012). On gains and losses, means and ends: Goal
Bartoń, K. (2016). MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference orientation and goal focus across adulthood. In
(Version 1.15.6) [Computer software]. Retrieved R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human
from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ motivation (pp. 280–300). New York, NY: Oxford
MuMIn/index.html University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0016
Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., . . . Green, P. Freund, A. M., Hennecke, M., & Riediger, M.
(2016). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using (2010). Age-related differences in outcome and
Eigen and S4 (Version 1.1–12) [Computer soft- process goal focus. European Journal of Develop-
ware]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/ mental Psychology, 7, 198–222. http://dx.doi.org/
web/packages/lme4/index.html 10.1080/17405620801969585
Bliese, P. D. (2009). Multilevel modeling in R (2.3) Fujita, K., & Sasota, J. A. (2011). The effects of
[Online manual]. Retrieved from http://cran.r-
construal levels on asymmetric temptation-goal
project.org/doc/contrib/Bliese_Multilevel.pdf
cognitive associations. Social Cognition, 29, 125–
Blunt, A. K., & Pychyl, T. A. (2005). Project systems
146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.2.125
of procrastinators: A personal project-analytic and
action control perspective. Personality and Indi- Giguère, B., Sirois, F. M., & Vaswani, M. (2016).
vidual Differences, 38, 1771–1780. http://dx.doi Delaying things and feeling bad about it? A norm-
.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.019 based approach to procrastination. In F. M. Sirois
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2013). Intensive & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination, health,
longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and and well-being (1st ed., pp. 189–212). London,
experience sampling research. New York, NY: UK: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Guilford Press. B978-0-12-802862-9.00009-8
Ebner-Priemer, U. W., & Trull, T. J. (2009). Ambu- Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-
latory assessment. European Psychologist, 14, sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.),
109–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14 Handbook of motivation and cognition: Founda-
.2.109 tions of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92). New
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational York, NY: Guilford Press.
beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psy- Green, P., MacLeod, C., & Alday, P. (2016). simr:
chology, 53, 109–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ Power analysis for generalised linear mixed mod-
annurev.psych.53.100901.135153 els by simulation (Version 1.0.1) [Computer soft-
Ferguson, Y. L., & Sheldon, K. M. (2010). Should ware]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/
goal-strivers think about “why” or “how” to strive? package⫽simr
It depends on their skill level. Motivation and Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987).
Emotion, 34, 253–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ Thought contents and cognitive functioning in mo-
s11031-010-9174-9 tivational versus volitional states of mind. Motiva-
Ferrari, J. R., Mason, C. P., & Hammer, C. (2006). tion and Emotion, 11, 101–120. http://dx.doi.org/
Procrastination as a predictor of task perceptions: 10.1007/BF00992338
Examining delayed and non-delayed tasks across Helmke, A., & Schrader, F.-W. (2000). Procrastina-
varied deadlines. Individual Differences Research, tion im Studium: Erscheinungsformen und moti-
4, 28–36.
vationale Bedingungen [Procrastination at college:
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it
Manifestations and motivational conditions]. In U.
must be a process: Study of emotion and coping
Schiefele & K.-P. Wild (Eds.), Interesse und Le-
during three stages of a college examination. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150– rnmotivation: Untersuchungen zu Entwicklung,
170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.1 Förderung und Wirkung (pp. 207–225). Münster,
.150 Germany: Waxmann.
Freund, A. M., & Hennecke, M. (2012). Changing Hennecke, M., & Freund, A. M. (2014). Identifying
eating behaviour vs. losing weight: The role of success on the process level reduces negative ef-
goal focus for weight loss in overweight women. fects of prior weight loss on subsequent weight
Psychology & Health, 27, 25– 42. http://dx.doi loss during a low-calorie diet. Applied Psychology:
.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.570867 Health and Well-Being, 6, 48– 66. http://dx.doi
Freund, A. M., & Hennecke, M. (2015). On means .org/10.1111/aphw.12021
and ends: The role of goal focus in successful goal Hofmann, W., Kotabe, H., & Luhmann, M. (2013).
pursuit. Current Directions in Psychological Sci- The spoiled pleasure of giving in to temptation.
ence, 24, 149–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Motivation and Emotion, 37, 733–742. http://dx
0963721414559774 .doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9355-4
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). tination. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality,
Dyadic data analysis (1st ed.). New York, NY: 15, 239–254.
Guilford Press. Pychyl, T. A., & Little, B. R. (1998). Dimensional
Klingsieck, K. B. (2013). Procrastination. European specificity in the prediction of subjective well-
Psychologist, 18, 24–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/ being: Personal projects in pursuit of the PhD.
1016-9040/a000138 Social Indicators Research, 45, 423– 473. http://dx
Krause, K., & Freund, A. M. (2014a). Delay or .doi.org/10.1023/A:1006970504138
procrastination—A comparison of self-report and Pychyl, T. A., & Sirois, F. M. (2016). Procrastina-
behavioral measures of procrastination and their tion, emotion regulation, and well-being. In F. M.
impact on affective well-being. Personality and Sirois & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination,
Individual Differences, 63, 75– 80. http://dx.doi health, and well-being (1st ed., pp. 163–188). Lon-
.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.050 don, UK: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10

Krause, K., & Freund, A. M. (2014b). How to beat .1016/B978-0-12-802862-9.00008-6

procrastination: The role of goal focus. European R Development Core Team. (2016). R: A language
Psychologist, 19, 132–144. http://dx.doi.org/10 and environment for statistical computing (Version
.1027/1016-9040/a000153 3.3.1) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R
Krause, K., & Freund, A. M. (2016). It’s in the Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved
means: Process focus helps against procrastination from http://www.R-project.org
in the academic context. Motivation and Emotion, Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. S. (2006). New perspec-
40, 422– 437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031- tives for the evaluation of training sessions in
016-9541-2 self-regulated learning: Time-series analyses of di-
Kroese, F. M., & De Ridder, D. T. D. (2016). Health ary data. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
behaviour procrastination: A novel reasoned route 31, 64–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych
towards self-regulatory failure. Health Psychology .2005.02.002
Review, 10, 313–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastina-
17437199.2015.1116019 tion: Theoretical notions, measurement, and re-
Kroese, F. M., Nauts, S., Kamphorst, B. A., Ander- search. In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G.
son, J. H., & de Ridder, D. T. D. (2016). Bedtime McCown (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoid-
procrastination: A behavioral perspective on sleep ance: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 71–
insufficiency. In F. M. Sirois & T. A. Pychyl 96). New York, NY: Plenum Press. http://dx.doi
(Eds.), Procrastination, health, and well-being (1st .org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0227-6_4
ed., pp. 93–119). London, UK: Academic Press. Schouwenburg, H. C., & Lay, C. H. (1995). Trait
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802862-9 procrastination and the Big-Five factors of person-
.00005-0 ality. Personality and Individual Differences, 18,
Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, 481– 490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-88
T. W. (2004). The effort heuristic. Journal of Ex- 69(94)00176-S
perimental Social Psychology, 40, 91–98. http://dx Shiffman, S. (2007). Designing protocols for ecolog-
.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00065-9 ical momentary assessment. In A. A. Stone, S.
Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Fried- Shiffman, A. A. Atienza, & L. Nebeling (Eds.),
man, R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. The science of real-time data capture: Self-reports
(2002). A theory of goal systems. In M. P. Zanna in health research (pp. 27–53). New York, NY:
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology Oxford University Press, USA.
(Vol. 34, pp. 331–378). San Diego, CA: Academic Sirois, F. M. (2014). Absorbed in the moment? An
Press. investigation of procrastination, absorption and
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., McCrea, S. M., & Sherman, cognitive failures. Personality and Individual Dif-
S. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal on the ferences, 71, 30–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of .paid.2014.07.016
Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 143–149. Sirois, F. M. (2016). Procrastination, stress, and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.009 chronic health conditions: A temporal perspective.
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., In F. M. Sirois & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrasti-
EISPACK authors, Heisterkamp, S., . . . R Core nation, health, and well-being (1st ed., pp. 67–92).
Team. (2016). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed London, UK: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10
effects models (Version 3.1–128). Retrieved from .1016/B978-0-12-802862-9.00004-9
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nlme/ Sirois, F. M., & Pychyl, T. A. (2016). Future of
index.html research on procrastination, health, and well-
Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, being: Key themes and recommendations. In F. M.
A. K. (2000). Five days of emotion: An experience Sirois & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination,
sampling study of undergraduate student procras- health, and well-being (1st ed., pp. 255–271). Lon-
don, UK: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10 Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F.
.1016/B978-0-12-802862-9.00012-8 (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes prece-
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic dence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it!
procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behav- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
ioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychol- 53– 67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80
ogy, 31, 503–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- .1.53
0167.31.4.503 Trope, Y., & Fishbach, A. (2000). Counteractive
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A self-control in overcoming temptation. Journal of
meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessen- Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 493–506.
tial self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.493
133, 65–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909 Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level
.133.1.65 theory of psychological distance. Psychological

Steel, P. (2010). Arousal, avoidant and decisional Review, 117, 440– 463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
procrastinators: Do they exist? Personality and a0018963
Individual Differences, 48, 926–934. http://dx.doi Vasalampi, K., Salmela-Aro, K., & Nurmi, J.-E.
.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.025 (2010). Education-related goal appraisals and self-
Steel, P., & Weinhardt, J. M. (2017). The building esteem during the transition to secondary educa-
blocks of motivation: Goal phase system. In N. tion: A longitudinal study. International Journal of
Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Behavioral Development, 34, 481– 490. http://dx
Viswesveran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work .doi.org/10.1177/0165025409359888
and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3,
pp. 27–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudi- Received November 24, 2017
nal study of procrastination, performance, stress, Revision received March 28, 2018
and health. Psychological Science, 8, 454– 458. Accepted May 8, 2018 䡲

Motivation and Procrastination Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motivation and Procrastination Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motivation Science

A Motivational Perspective on Academic Procrastination:

A Motivational Perspective on Academic Procrastination:

Oliver J. Kaftan and Alexandra M. Freund

Keywords: procrastination, motivation, goal focus, activity perceptions, experience

Procrastination: Definition and Causes Although procrastination is often considered

after the SMS prompt. In this questionnaire,

M 5.51 5.09 2.35 2.85 5.02 3.07

SD 1.70 1.82 1.74 1.95 1.69 2.15

.01 .02 .85 .05 .02 .04

Between PF .08 .12 .13 .09

.03 .02 1.32 .06 .03 .02 1.17 .07

Between PF .09 .05 .10 .14 .75 .40

.02 2.19 .004 .07 .02 .02 .96 .06

Between PF .07 4.04 .15 .45 .14 2.81 .09 .70

.02 .02 .92 .06 .01 .03 .38 .06

Between PF .09 .15 .06

.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.050 don, UK: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10

Krause, K., & Freund, A. M. (2014b). How to beat .1016/B978-0-12-802862-9.00008-6

.133.1.65 theory of psychological distance. Psychological

You might also like