COLUMBUS, Ohio — Procrastination, the art of delaying tasks we’d rather not tackle, is a familiar foe for many. However, an innovative new study sheds light on why some people are more prone to procrastination than others, linking this tendency to a psychological concept known as valence weighting bias. This bias influences whether individuals are more guided by positive or negative attitudes when facing new situations or decisions.
Scientists at The Ohio State University found a fascinating interplay between our attitudes and our actions, particularly when approaching tasks we find unpleasant.
Valence weighting bias, as explained by the team, is a mental process where individuals lean more heavily on either positive or negative attitudes or “signals” when encountering something new or deciding whether to engage in an activity.
“And the question is, which wins that battle — if, indeed, there are elements of both positivity and negativity?” says study senior author Russell Fazio, professor of psychology at Ohio State, in a university release.
Through a series of studies, researchers discovered that individuals with a tendency to focus on the negative aspects of a situation are more likely to procrastinate. Intriguingly, their research also suggests that it’s possible to adjust this bias towards a more neutral stance, potentially reducing the inclination to delay tasks.
The first study involved 232 participants and focused on a relatable scenario: filing federal tax returns. Researchers found that those who tend to file their returns late in the tax season also exhibited a stronger negative weighting bias. This connection suggests that people’s general attitudes can significantly influence their propensity to procrastinate on specific tasks.
A second study with 147 college students further explored this concept by examining how valence weighting bias and self-control affected students’ participation in a research program for course credit. The findings indicated that students with a negative bias and low motivation or self-control were more likely to delay their participation.
“The first study established the basic effect of negative weighting bias, but study two provides some nuance,” explains study first author Javier Granados Samayoa, a former Ohio state graduate student and now a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania.
“For people who don’t think about it too much or can’t think about it too much, their valence weighting tendencies guide their behavior in a straightforward manner. But if somebody is more motivated and able to think more about it, that might bring other considerations that dampen the influence of the valence weighting bias.”
The third study targeted self-identified procrastinators with a high negative weighting bias, attempting to alter their bias to make positive and negative signals more balanced. This intervention led to a significant change in behavior, with students earning credit hours more quickly than those who did not undergo the manipulation.
Researchers also found that a negative weighting bias isn’t always detrimental. It can encourage individuals to be more realistic in their self-assessment, such as when questioning if they’ve studied enough for a test. A positive bias, on the other hand, might lead to overconfidence.
“It’s better to be more objectively balanced than to be at either extreme,” notes Fazio. “But the situation where a particular valence weighting bias is likely to be problematic is going to vary.”
The implications of their research extend beyond academic curiosity, offering potential strategies for addressing procrastination by understanding and possibly altering our inherent biases. This study not only provides insight into why we procrastinate but also suggests a path towards more effective management of our tendencies to delay, which could have broad applications in educational settings and personal productivity strategies.
The study, supported by the John Templeton Foundation and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, is published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences.