Temporal discounting predicts procrastination in the real world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People procrastinate, but why? One long-standing hypothesis is that temporal discounting drives procrastination: in a task with a distant future reward, the discounted future reward fails to provide sufficient motivation to initiate work early. However, empirical evidence for this hypothesis has been lacking. Here, we used a long-term real-world task and a novel measure of procrastination to examine the association between temporal discounting and real-world procrastination. To measure procrastination, we critically measured the entire time course of the work progress instead of a single endpoint, such as task completion day. This approach allowed us to compute a fine-grained metric of procrastination. We found a positive correlation between individuals' degree of future reward discounting and their level of procrastination, suggesting that temporal discounting is a cognitive mechanism underlying procrastination. We found no evidence of a correlation when we, instead, measured procrastination by task completion day or by survey. This association between temporal discounting and procrastination offers empirical support for targeted interventions that could mitigate procrastination, such as modifying incentive systems to reduce the delay to a reward and lowering discount rates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".