Trial reportBMC psychology2025
Now I feel like I'm going to get to it soon: a brief, scalable intervention for state procrastination.
Trial report in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Procrastination is a pervasive habit that undermines well-being, productivity, and mental health. Developing brief and scalable interventions to address this issue is crucial. Here, we tested the efficacy of an intervention grounded in the Temporal Decision Model of procrastination. Our intervention targeted state-level procrastination by simultaneously reducing task aversion and enhancing outcome utility. A total of 1,035 participants were randomly assigned to an experimental group or one of two control groups. The experimental group engaged in a structured activity that adapted an Affect Labeling technique with subtask generation/reward selection; the former stage aimed to reduce task aversion and the latter stage aimed to enhance outcome utility. Control groups responded to neutral or some task-related questions. Participants rated task aversion, outcome utility, mood, stress, motivation, and likelihood of completing the procrastinated task. Social desirability bias was measured and controlled for. The experimental group reported significantly higher task completion likelihood, greater outcome utility, improved mood, and a larger utility-aversion gap compared to control groups. Mediation analysis revealed that the utility-aversion gap and mood partially mediated the relationship between group assignment and task completion likelihood. These findings illustrate the potential effectiveness of a brief, low-effort intervention for reducing state procrastination. By enhancing outcome utility and employing structured strategies, this intervention suggests a scalable solution with potential applications in digital platforms and workplace settings to improve task engagement and productivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.