Cited by 70Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Targeting Procrastination Using Psychological Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Rozental, Alexander, Bennett, Sophie, Forsström, David, Ebert, David D., Shafran, Roz, Andersson, Gerhard, Carlbring, Per·2018·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Background: Procrastination can be stressful and frustrating, but it seldom causes any major distress. However, for some people, it can become problematic, resulting in anxiety, lowered mood, physical complaints, and decreased well-being. Still, few studies have investigated the benefits of targeting procrastination. In addition, no attempt has previously been made to determine the overall efficacy of providing psychological treatments. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching for eligible records in Scopus, Proquest, and Google Scholar. Only randomized controlled trials comparing psychological treatments for procrastination to an inactive comparator and assessing the outcomes by a self-report measure were included. A random effects model was used to determine the standardized mean difference Hedge’s g at post-treatment. Furthermore, test for heterogeneity was performed, fail-safe N was calculated, and the risk of bias was explored. The study was pre-registered at Prospero: CRD42017069981. Results: A total of 1639 records were identified, with twelve studies (21 comparisons, N = 718) being included in the quantitative synthesis. Overall effect size g when comparing treatment to control was 0.34, 95% Confidence Interval [0.11, 0.56], but revealing significant heterogeneity, Q(20) = 46.99, p < .00, and I2 = 61.14%, 95% CI [32.83, 84.24]. Conducting a subgroup analysis of three out of four studies using cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) found an effect size g of 0.55, 95% CI [0.32, 0.77], and no longer showing any heterogeneity, Q(4) = 3.92, p = 0.42, I2 = 0.00%, 95% CI [0.00, 91.02] (N = 236). Risk of publication bias, as assessed by the Egger’s test was not significant, z = -1.05, p = 0.30, fail-safe N was 370 studies, and there was some risk of bias as rated by two independent researchers. In terms of secondary outcomes, the self-report measures were too varied to present an aggregated estimate. Conclusions: Psychological treatments seem to have small benefits on procrastination, but the studies displayed significant between-study variation. Meanwhile, CBT was associated with a moderate benefit, but consisted of only three studies. Recommendations for future research are provided, including the use of more valid and reliable outcomes and a screening interview at intake.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01588

Cites

71 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • This finding aligns closely with Rozental, Forsström, et al. (2018), which reported an effect size of d = 1.24.

    “This finding aligns closely with Rozental, Forsström, et al. (2018), which reported an effect size of d = 1.24.”

    From Group cognitive behavioral therapy for reducing procrastination in college students: a randomized controlled trial (2026) · cites this paper as Rozental, Forsström, et al. (2018)

    The Results (Synthesized findings; page unavailable) report an overall effect size of g = 0.34 and a CBT subgroup effect size of g = 0.55, not d = 1.24. A search for 1.24 found no such reported effect size in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Approximately 57 participants were needed for 80% power (alpha = .05; repeated measures ANOVA) based on the lower bound of the 95% CI (0.76) from Rozental et al. (2018).

    “Based on this, approximately 57 participants were needed for 80% power (alpha = .05; repeated measures ANOVA).”

    From Group cognitive behavioral therapy for reducing procrastination in college students: a randomized controlled trial (2026) · cites this paper as Rozental, Forsström, et al. (2018)

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Session 3 discussed circadian rhythms, energy levels, stimulus control, multitasking, and to-do lists, which all affect impulsivity.

    “Session 3 discussed circadian rhythms, energy levels, stimulus control, multitasking, and to do-lists, which all affect the factor impulsivity (creating the right circumstances to engage in goal-directed behaviors and removing distractions).”

    From Group cognitive behavioral therapy for reducing procrastination in college students: a randomized controlled trial (2026) · cites this paper as Rozental, Forsström, et al., 2018

    The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies stimulus control as an intervention targeting sensitivity to delay, and the Introduction > Rationale (page unavailable) discusses removing distractions to prevent immediate gratification. Our copy does not describe a Session 3 or link circadian rhythms, energy levels, multitasking, and to-do lists to impulsivity. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Session 2 addressed goal-setting and reward scheduling, believed to primarily affect value, delay, and expectancy.

    “Session 2 addressed goal-setting and reward scheduling, believed to primarily affect the factors value (increasing the reward of engaging with a task or commitment), delay (preventing hyperbolic discounting by transferring distal rewards to more proximal), and expectancy (interfering with maladaptive beliefs about how a task or commitment might be experienced).”

    From Group cognitive behavioral therapy for reducing procrastination in college students: a randomized controlled trial (2026) · cites this paper as Rozental, Forsström, et al., 2018

    The Discussion links goal-setting to value and identifies interventions aimed at expectancy, timing, and sensitivity to delay. It does not describe reward scheduling or establish the sentence’s specific account of proximal rewards and maladaptive beliefs. The Session 2 description appears to be the citing authors’ own account, not a claim about this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Rozental et al. (2015), and Rozental, Forsström et al. (2018) found smaller effects on well-being and quality of life.

    “Rozental et al. (2015), and Rozental, Forsström et al. (2018) found smaller effects on well-being and quality of life”

    From Group cognitive behavioral therapy for reducing procrastination in college students: a randomized controlled trial (2026) · cites this paper as Rozental, Forsström et al. (2018)

    The Results (Synthesized findings; page unavailable) report small quality-of-life effects from Rozental et al. (2015a), and the Discussion describes small-to-moderate effects on secondary outcomes. Our copy does not report well-being or quality-of-life findings from the separately cited Rozental, Forsström et al. (2018) trial, so it supports only part of the attribution. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Spielberger C. (1980). Test Attitude Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rozental, A., Bennett, S., Forsström, D., Ebert, D. D., Shafran, R., Andersson, G., & Carlbring, P.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Rozental, Alexander
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2018-08-30
Volume
9
Pages
1588-1588
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2888877365
Cited by
70
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • OPUS Repository (Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
procrastination, psychological intervention, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment efficacy, self-report measures, study heterogeneity, risk of bias, publication bias, well-being, anxiety, mood, physical complaints, risk of bias assessment, risk of bias in meta-analysis, risk of bias in individual studies

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