Single Session Induction of Incremental Mindset to Reduce Procrastination in First-Year University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Procrastination is a prevalent condition defined by self-regulation difficulties, particularly postponing the start and competition of important tasks (Aftab et al. 2017). Everyone procrastinates from time to time, but procrastination is especially prevalent in post-secondary education. My research will investigate the influence of incremental (growth) mindsets on procrastination. An incremental mindset is a mindset characterized by believing that your personal attributes, such as work ethic and impulse control, can be changed (Howell, 2016), and. previous research by Howell and Buro (2009) found a negative correlation between procrastination and an incremental mindset. In our study, we propose to use a single session incremental mindset induction procedure, or a sham induction procedure, with introductory Psychology students in the Fall 2018 term. After the induction procedure, we will periodically assess student mindset, the submission times for various online assignments relative to their due date to assess procrastination, and student grade outcomes. We will then analyze how student mindset relates to the likelihood of procrastinating on these academic tasks and correlate assignment submission times with student grade outcomes. We predict that students who have undergone the incremental mindset induction procedure will be more likely to adopt an incremental mindset, have lower levels of procrastination, and have higher grades on submitted work than those who received the sham induction procedure. The results of this study could help first year university students by giving them a mindset induction that helps them combat their procrastination that is cost effective, long-lasting, and quick to administer. Discipline: Psychology Faculty Mentor: Dr. Eric Legge
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".