Cited by 1,266Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsGrit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation

RETRACTED: Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment

Ariely, Dan, Wertenbroch, Klaus·2002·Psychological Science

Abstract

Procrastination is all too familiar to most people. People delay writing up their research (so we hear!), repeatedly declare they will start their diets tomorrow, or postpone until next week doing odd jobs around the house. Yet people also sometimes attempt to control their procrastination by setting deadlines for themselves. In this article, we pose three questions: (a) Are people willing to self-impose meaningful (i.e., costly) deadlines to overcome procrastination? (b) Are self-imposed deadlines effective in improving task performance? (c) When self-imposing deadlines, do people set them optimally, for maximum performance enhancement? A set of studies examined these issues experimentally, showing that the answer is "yes" to the first two questions, and "no" to the third. People have self-control problems, they recognize them, and they try to control them by self-imposing costly deadlines. These deadlines help people control procrastination, hit they are not as effective as some externally imposed deadlines in improving task performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-9280.00441This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ariely and Wertenbroch (2002) found that student performance was better when students had to follow no-choice fixed working schedules determined by the teacher than when they could determine their own schedules.

    “For example, Ariely and Wertenbroch (2002) compared student performance under no-choice fixed working schedules determined by the teacher versus choice working schedules (the students could determine their own schedules) and found that performance was better when students had to follow the no-choice fixed working schedules.”

    From How Study Environments Foster Academic Procrastination: Overview and Recommendations (2020) · cites this paper as Ariely and Wertenbroch, 2002

  • Self-set deadlines may work to reduce procrastination, but they may actually reduce performance.

    “Although such deadlines may work to reduce procrastination, they may actually reduce performance (Ariely and Wertenbroch, 2002).”

    From How Study Environments Foster Academic Procrastination: Overview and Recommendations (2020) · cites this paper as Ariely and Wertenbroch, 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • INSEAD (FR)
Corresponding author
Ariely, Dan
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2002-05
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
219-224
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2107406322
Cited by
1,266
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 140 · 2018: 81 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 76 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 55
FWCI
10.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Grit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
Keywords
procrastination, self-control, precommitment, task performance, self-control problems
MeSH terms
Behavior, Humans, Pilot Projects, Students, Task Performance and Analysis, Self Efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review