Out of Sight, Out of Time? A Meta–Analytic Investigation of Procrastination and Time Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent theory suggests that trait procrastination is a form of temporal self–regulation failure that reflects a disjunction between the present and future self. Yet research to date is sparse and inconsistent regarding the nature of the associations of procrastination with time perspective. The current study aimed to meta–analytically summarize the evidence to date to address the question of how procrastination is linked to future and present time perspective, and to test whether stress and positive affect explained the link between procrastination and future time perspective. A search of the available literature yielded six published studies and three unpublished studies, which were combined with five unpublished data sets for a total of 14 samples with 4312 participants. The meta–analysis revealed that procrastination had a moderate and significant negative association with future time perspective, and a small but significant positive association with present time perspective. Mediation analyses across two of the samples found that high stress and low positive affect explained in part the association between procrastination and future time perspective. Overall, these findings support the notion that procrastinators focus less on the future and highlight the dynamic interrelations of affect and cognition that underlie procrastinators’ intertemporal choices. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it