Using Acceptance and Mindfulness to Reduce Procrastination Among University Students: Results from a Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic procrastination, the irrational tendency to delay the beginning and/or end of an academic task, is a pervasive problem for a significant number of university students. There are several cognitive and behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions for procrastination that exist but there is a lack of outcome research. There has been a recent emergence of new CBT approaches, such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) that use acceptance and mindfulness methods to promote behavioral change. These approaches are particularly well suited for addressing procrastination. The purpose of this article is to present data from a pilot study using acceptance and mindfulness techniques in a group intervention with university students. The hypothesis is that that the intervention would reduce procrastination and improve acceptance and mindfulness related variables. Results show that the intervention helped reduce procrastination and increase mindfulness. The intervention was also proven to be acceptable and feasible for a university student population. Future research directions and implications are discussed. Keywords: Procrastination. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Mindfulness.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".