The Construct Validity of Active Procrastination: Is it Procrastination or Purposeful Delay?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research over the past decades has shown that procrastination is an instance of selfregulation failure with deleterious consequences.Surprisingly, Chu and Choi (2005) have coined a construct called active procrastination emphasizing that procrastination can lead to positive outcomes despite the deferral of tasks on purpose until the last minute.The present study examined the construct validity of active procrastination.Using important antecedents (e.g., self-regulation, intention-action gap), correlates (e.g., self-efficacy beliefs, conscientiousness) and related outcomes of procrastination (e.g., stress, depression) as identified in the extant research literature, correlational results revealed that active procrastination has been mislabeled as a type of procrastination that is more appropriately construed as purposeful delay with adaptive qualities.The present study failed to replicate the nomological network of active procrastination demonstrated in previous research.Limitations associated with the active procrastination construct, empirical evidence and the corresponding inferences in developing the Active Procrastination Scale are discussed.iii Acknowledgement First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Tim Pychyl whose invaluable support and guidance at every step of the way made this Masters project come to fruition.Thank you for your continuous encouragement throughout this adventure.I still remember the day when you told me that you would supervise my Masters project.It was one of the most exciting days of my life.Not only it was a chance for me to pursue a graduate degree but to learn from the best.Because of that great opportunity, I am here today completing my Masters degree.Thank you for seeing the researcher in me and letting me work on this interesting project.I have learned a lot from you in these past two years.Your immense knowledge, countless feedback and advice, and keen eye for details helped me to grow as a researcher and inspired me to complete my degree in a purposeful manner.I will always be grateful for this opportunity, the opportunity to learn from you.I would also like to extend my appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Cheryl Harasymchuk, Dr. Marina Milyavskaya and Dr. George Pollard for their interesting insight and feedback in shaping the final
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 | 0.016 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".