Giving in when feeling less good: Procrastination, action control, and social temptations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotion-regulation perspectives on procrastination highlighting the primacy of short-term mood regulation focus mainly on negative affect. Positive affect, however, has received much less attention and has not been considered with respect to social temptations. To address this issue, we examined how trait procrastination was linked to positive and negative affect in the context of social temptations across two prospective studies. Action Control Theory, Personality Systems Interactions Theory, and a mood regulation theory of procrastination served as guiding conceptual frameworks. In Study 1, moderated mediation analyses revealed that low positive affect explained the link between trait procrastination and time spent procrastinating on academic tasks over a 48-hr period in a student sample (N = 142), and this effect was moderated by the presence of social temptations. Parallel results for goal enjoyment assessed at Time 2 were found in Study 2 with a community sample (N = 94) attempting to make intended health behaviour changes over a 6-month period. Our findings indicate that procrastinators are at risk for disengaging from intended tasks when social temptations are present and positive task-related affect is low.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".