Skip to main content
Log in

Precrastination in cognitive tasks

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Precrastination is defined as the tendency to complete a task early even at the expense of extra effort (Rosenbaum et al., 2019). It has been suggested that people structure their behavior this way to free up cognitive resources, known as the CLEAR hypothesis (VonderHaar et al., 2019), particularly when given simple task choices. In the current study, this task choice behavior was compared across cognitive tasks to explore its generalizability. In Experiment 1, simple math problems were placed on boxes within a box moving task to be solved to determine box moving order. Participants were asked to generate category items during the box moving task at a time of their choosing, and the trial position they chose was measured. In Experiment 2, item generation and simple math problem tasks were compared during the box moving task on the same measure. In addition, individual difference measures of impulsiveness (Experiment 1) and self-regulation (Experiment 2) were included to investigate possible relations between task order choices and these traits. In Experiment 1, when math problems were added to the boxes, no significant precrastination was found and difficulty of the category affected trial position in only one order condition. In Experiment 2, high precrastination rates were found for both math problem and item generation tasks. However, there were no correlations between impulsiveness or self-regulation and trial positions for these tasks. These results suggest that task order choices for cognitive tasks may be dependent on the relative perceived difficulty of the tasks to be completed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material

Data available from first author upon request.

Code Availability

N/A

Notes

  1. Because the data were not normally distributed, we confirmed these results with a non-parametric sign test. Neither difficulty level test was significant, p’s > .18.

  2. We also confirmed these results with a sign test. Trial position for both tasks was significantly different from the middle value of 6, p’s < .004, and trial position did not differ across tasks, p > .99.

References

  • Adachi, M., & Adachi, K. (2021). Should we start with an easy task having a short deadline, or a difficult task having a long deadline? Psychology, 12, 1878–1885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, K. B., Neal, D. J., & Collins, S. E. (2004). A psychometric analysis of the self-regulation questionnaire. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 253–260.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, J., & Carlson, S. R. (2014). Trait impulsivity and prospective memory abilities: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 40–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuttler, C., Relkov, T., & Taylor, S. (2014). Quick to act, quick to forget: The link between impulsiveness and prospective memory. European Journal of Personality, 28, 560–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, L. R., Coder, E., Kogan, C., Raghunath, N., Taddese, E., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2019a). Which task will we choose first? Precrastination and cognitive load in task ordering. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 81, 489–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, L. R., Stubblefield, A. M., Dyre, B. P., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2019b). Starting or finishing sooner? Sequencing preferences in object transfer tasks. Psychological Research, 83, 1674–1684.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. J. (2015a). Strategic offloading of delayed intentions into the external environment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 971–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. J. (2015b). Strategic use of reminders: Influence of both domain-general and task-specific metacognitive confidence, independent of objective memory ability. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 245–260.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. J., Bird, A., Carpenter, J. M., Fleming, S. M., Sachdeva, C., & Tsai, P.-C. (2020). Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 501–517.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2(510), 102–138. Doi:Citeulike-article-id:3488537.

  • Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 665–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozer, B. U., Callaghan, J. O., Bokszczanin, A., Ederer, E., & Essau, C. (2014). Dynamic interplay of depression, perfectionism, and self-regulation on procrastination. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 42(3), 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, E. E., & Kahan, T. A. (2019). Precrastination and the cognitive-load-reduction (CLEAR) hypothesis. Memory. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1690001

  • Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768–774.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Potts, C. A., Pastel, S., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2018). How are cognitive and physical difficulty compared? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 80(2), 500–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghunath, N., Fournier, L. R., & Kogan, C. (2020). Precrastination and individual differences in working memory capacity. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01373-6

  • Rayburn-Reeves, R. M., Molet, M., & Zentall, T. R. (2011). Simultaneous discrimination reversal learning in pigeons and humans: Anticipatory and perseverative errors. Learning & Behavior, 39, 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, D. A., Gong, L., & Potts, C. A. (2014). Pre-crastination: Hastening of subgoal completion at the expense of extra physical effort. Psychological Science, 25, 1487–1496.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, D. A., Fournier, L. R., Levy-Tzedek, S., McBride, D. M., Rosenthal, R., Sauerberger, K., VonderHaar, R. L., Wasserman, E. A., & Zentall, T. R. (2019). Sooner rather than later: Precrastination rather than procrastination. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 229–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419833652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Fernández, S., Leonhard, T., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2011). Processing two tasks with varying task order: Central stage duration influences central processing order. Acta Psychologica, 137, 10–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Fernández, S., Leonhard, T., Lachmair, M., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2013). Processing order in dual-tasks when the duration of motor responses varies [Special issue: Cognitive science]. Universitas Psychologica, 12(5), 1439-1452. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY12-5.podt.

  • Sauerberger, K. (2019). When doing things later is the best choice: Precrastination as an individual difference. UC Riverside. ProQuest ID: Sauerberger_ucr_0032D_13823. Merritt ID: ark:/13030/m51k4d6q. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5wh9d0bw

  • Smith, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 347–361.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stanford, M. S., Mathias, C. W., Dougherty, D. M., Lake, S. L., Anderson, N. E., & Patton, J. H. (2009). Fifty years of the Barratt impulsiveness scale: An update and review. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 385–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Overschelde, J. P., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2004). Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 289–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2014). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Motivation Science, 1, 19–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VonderHaar, R. L., McBride, D. M., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2019). Task order choices in cognitive and perceptual-motor tasks: The cognitive load reduction (CLEAR) hypothesis. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 2517–2525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, E. A., & Brzykcy, S. J. (2015). Pre-crastination in the pigeon. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1130–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to writing and approved the manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dawn M. McBride.

Ethics declarations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

No conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethics Approval

The study was approved by the IRB at Illinois State University for human subjects.

Consent to Participate

All participants provided consent through signed consent forms.

Consent for Publication

All authors consent to publication in Current Psychology.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McBride, D.M., Villarreal, S.R. & Salrin, R.L. Precrastination in cognitive tasks. Curr Psychol 42, 14984–15002 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02750-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02750-7

Keywords

Navigation