Procrastination – the voluntary delay of an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse off because of the delay – is a problem attracting high interest among researchers within different disciplines of psychology. Research on procrastination has documented the problematic nature of this irrational delay, as it relates to increased levels of stress and anxiety, reduced quality of life, and lower performance and productivity. Thus, procrastination can be considered a problem with both individual and societal impact.
The first volume of this Research Topic (2016-2018,
New Perspectives on Procrastination) received much attention, with participating authors contributing 17 papers that were viewed already by approximately a quarter of a million people and downloaded 20,000 times. In this Research Topic, volume II, we continue our invitation to contribute to procrastination research. We suggest, but do not limit to, contributions in the following areas:
• Contextual and societal factors. The majority of studies have focused on individual factors in procrastination, often neglecting contextual influences. What are the situational and social factors that induce, mitigate, or worsen procrastination and its effects?
• Cultural differences. Procrastination is a common term in many countries, but few studies have assessed cultural and national differences explicitly. For example, are there cultural and national differences as to whether delay is seen as procrastination? Do cultural differences in the perception of time play a role?
• Beyond self-reports. Self-report measures are often used to assess procrastination, but there is a need to establish alternative, more sensitive and objective measures.
• Culture-sensitive instruments. In what ways do cultures and subcultures perceive procrastination differently? Measures that are sensitive to differences vs. similarities between cultures should be developed.
• Study designs. Most studies on procrastination have been cross-sectional. Alternative designs, such as repeated measurements and longitudinal studies, may increase our understanding of the problem.
• Domain-specific consequences of procrastination. Most studies have addressed procrastination in the academic domain. Although consequences may be negative in that domain, what can be said about the different domains, such as family and friends or personal development?
• Workplace procrastination. How is procrastination dealt with in the workplace? How do others view procrastinators in the workplace? How do supervisors deal with procrastination?
• Group-level procrastination. Procrastination is often considered an individual problem, but is it possible that groups or subcultures may share values that can enhance procrastination at the group level?
• Prevention. Can we develop ways in which procrastination may be prevented? Are there any specific educational practices that may be helpful? Can internet tools be helpful in prevention?
• Intervention. Which interventions are most effective? Why are these most effective? What are the most effective aspects of training or tools that have been designed to reduce procrastination? Are (widely sold) self-help books effective in overcoming procrastination?
• Focused reviews. As the procrastination field has grown over the decades, there is a need for summaries and evaluations on important subtopics. Examples are measurement of procrastination, “types” of procrastinators, bedtime procrastination, and others.
We gratefully acknowledge the editorial contributions of Dr. Katrin B. Klingsieck and Dr. Wendelien Van Eerde within New Perspectives in Procrastination (volume I).
