Solving procrastination: A deep dive into Temporal Motivation Theory

Can procrastination be 'solved'?

Let's get this straight: Procrastination is a symptom; and not a singular problem.

It is complex.

No only does it differ between individuals (some people procrastinate more than others), it differs by task (even chronic procrastinators do some things early), and what you do and don't procrastinate on changes over time.

It changes based on how tired you are. How hungry you are. How connected to your purpose you feel. Who is looking over your shoulder. How much time you have.

And so on...

But most models of procrastination don't take those things into consideration.

The prevailing theory of procrastination suggests you procrastinate as a way to deal with (that is, avoid) negative emotional states. Like fear or failure, boredom, or embarrasment.

While it does seem to be true that procrastination is a symptom of an emotional state you are trying to avoid, knowing that is not exactly helpful.

What I mean is: What do you do with that information?

Let's say you find yourself procrastinating. There is some task you're putting off. Even the thought of it you find exhausting. So you distract yourself.

You're procrastinating to cope with the negative emotion of exhaustion.

But what's the alternative? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, grit your teeth, and get on with it?

Yeah. How's that working out for you?

Knowing that you procrastinate to avoid negative emotions does not mean you know what to do about it.

I think there is a more useful way to think about 'solving' procrastination.

Temporal Motivation Theory

I said most theories don't take into consideration the complexity of procrastination.

The exception is Temporal Motivation Theory (TMT).

Piers Steel and Cornelius König's (2006) TMT is a model for predicting how motivation changes based on task characteristics, personal characterists, and over time.

Central to their theory are four variables: expectancy, value, impulsivity, and delay.

In the context of TMT, expectancy relates to the expected probability that the desired outcome such as finishing an assignment will directly help achieve a larger goal like getting a well paying job.

Value relates to how much the expected outcome (e.g., getting a good grade or a good job) is valued. Value in TMT refers to the extent to which individuals do not discount the value of unpleasant tasks, find pleasure in achievement, and are less prone to boredom doing the task (Steel, 2007).

Side note: Expectancy and value in TMT actually dates back to 1964 when Victor Vroom, a management theorist, proposed expectancy theory, which has a long history in the psychology of motivation.

The third factor, impulsivity, relates to a person's level of distractibility and lack of self-control. Impulsive people prefer activities that are more immediately enjoyable and have a sooner promise of reward.

The final variable of the TMT 'formula', delay, relates specifically to the time remaining before action or completion of a task is required; for example, time before the assignment deadline.

So what does this have to do with 'solving' procrastination?

Well, at the crux of TMT is an equation for thinking about motivation (M), where motivation is inversely related to the likely extent of procrastination:

While expectancy and value tend to be more related to a specific task, impulsivity is more of a stable personal trait independent of the task, and delay changes as time goes by.

That's why your procrastination feels like it gets worse and worse. Because the longer you put something off, the higher the motivational pressure becomes.

And the higher the pressure to do something is without you actually doing something, the worse you'll feel.

This is a bit of a weird concept. I (via Steel & König) am saying procrastination can be reduced to a formula and solved on a calculater.

Well, not quite...

Stating it a different way: If expectancy of success and percieved value are high, and your impulsivity and available time are low, then motivation to act should be high, and procrastination behaviour should be low.

Because this theory includes a factor that changes over time (i.e., delay), we can plot what that formula looks like over time (see Figure 1).

TMT is the only theory that considers both the multi-faceted and dynamic nature of procrastination, explicitly articulating the curvilinear interaction between time and behavioural delay associated with trait level variables.

Ick. Apologies for the academic psycho-nerd babble. Let's get back to plain English...

TMT is an interesting theory, but does it work?

While I didn't find TMT to be a very good predictor of procrastination, I did find it to be useful as a way to understand procrastination and help people reduce it.

A lot of research goes unpublished, so I can't say this for sure, but I think I was the first person to empirically test whether TMT could actually predict procrastination (here).

I tried measuring students' expectancy for their ability to complete and do well on an assignment, how much they valued it as part of their broader life goals, and how impulsive they are generally.

Because I was asking students specifically about an assignment they were completing, I was also able to quantify the 'delay' part of the equation.

I used both Steel's measures, as well as my own, but nomatter what I tried (and I tried a lot!), I could not find a way of assembling the procrastination equation with real data that could solidly predict procrastination.  

Bummer.

But all is not lost.

TMT doesn't have to predict procrastination to be useful for reducing it.

While I didn't find TMT to be a very good predictor of procrastination, I did find it to be useful as a way to understand procrastination and help people reduce it.

An unfortunate reality of the research on procrastination is there are lots of great ideas floating around, but very little evidence for the strategies proposed to reduce it.

If the four domains of TMT truely do explain procrastination, then we should be focusing on strategies that address each of those areas.

What I found was when I prompted students to reflect on questions designed to build their expectancy and value, and reduce their impulsivity, their delay behaviour looked a lot more like a straight line than the delay curve of students who did not answer those questions (see Figure 2).

You can find the full study here. Or read David Robinson's write-up about the research for the BBC here.

So while TMT doesn't seem to mathematically predict procrastination, it may be a useful frame for thinking about why people delay, and therefore provide a useful frame for helping people to reduce delay.

Since doing the research, I have also been working 1:1 with clients who struggle with procrastination.

And all of them, without exception, have been able to recognise where they tend to trip up.

Sometimes they don't have a clear mental model of what they need to do that they are confident will get them to their desired outcome. Namely, they have low expectancy.

Or they have competing priorities, often fighting to keep their heds above water with things that feel more urgent at the time. Namely, their have low relative percieved value in the thing they're avoiding.

Or they're easily distracted. Namely, they have high impulsivity.

Or there is no concrete or near deadline. Namely, there is a a lot of delay and time to 'do it tomorrow.

Or some commbination of the above.

Each factor of TMT exists on a spectrum. But while they all might be relevant to what you're putting off, there is usually one primary barrier that is bearing most of the low hanging fruit.

If you can self-assess as lacking either expectancy or value for what your putting off, or feel that you're impulsive or don't have a clear deadline (delay), then your options for managing your procrastination become a lot clearer.

Because I think this way of diagnosing procrastination helps identify the most useful types of strategies, I've set up a whole seperate page to help you find and try strategies that could work for you.

Visit the Procrastination page here.

I have segmented strategies into the below categories based on the four domains of procrastination.

‍

Find out why you are procrastinating

If you're procrastinating but are not sure if you have problems with Expectancy, Value, Impulsitivy, or Delay, here are some questions you can ask yourself.

Fill in the blank '________' with whatever it is you have been avoiding. Answer on a scale of 0 = Not at all; 1 = Maybe; 2 = Definitely.

Expectancy

• I could teach someone who is new to ________ how to do it in under an hour
• I know exactly how ________ contributes to my broader life goals
• If I make a mistake while ________, I will realise it almost immediately
• I am better than most people at ________
• I have done ________ before, and I think I did a good job

Value

• I am genuinely very interested in ________
• I enjoy the time I spend ________
• If somebody asked me, I would feel good to tell them I have been ________
• Of all the things I have to do, ________ is at the top of the list
• I am confident ________ will make my life measurably better

Impulsivity

• I get distracted and lose track of time
• I feel like I can't control my impulses
• I tend to choose fun things over hard work
• When I make time to do it, I end up doing anything but ________
• I would be more disciplined if I worked on ________ with other people

Delay

• There is no clear deadline for me to ________
• Nobody important to me will be disapponted if I don't do ________
• I still have plenty of time to do ________
• It's possible that I will do a better job with ________ if I put it off a bit longer
• I have a good idea of how long it will take me to ________, and I am on schedule.

If you scored under 3 on Expectancy or Value, or over 3 on Impulsivity or Delay, then have a look through the list of strategies under that domain.

Notes.

I mentioned before that I did not find a way to measure expectancy, value, impulsivity, or delay in my research, but I still think the procrastination equation is useful. Thus, the above questions are a re-imagined approach to quantifying the TMT formula. They have no sicentific backing, but unlike other approaches that have been published but don't work, at least the above might work.

If you're studying Temporal Motivation Theory and would like to see my work and critique of the model, you can do here, or reach out to me directly here.