Content uploaded by Alexandra M Freund
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alexandra M Freund on Jan 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
European
Psyc
hologist
Editor-in-Chief
Alexander Grob
Managing Editor
Kristen Lavallee
Associate Editors
R. Banse · U. Ehlert
G. Galfano · K. Salmela-Aro
N. Anderson
Offi cial Organ of the European Federation
of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA)
www.hogrefe.com/journals/ep
ISSN-L 1016-9040 · ISSN-Print 1016-9040 · ISSN- Online 1878-531X
European
Psychologist
Your article has appeared in a journal published by Hogrefe Publishing.
This e-offprint is provided exclusively for the personal use of the authors. It may not be
posted on a personal or institutional website or to an institutional or disciplinary repository.
If you wish to post the article to your personal or institutional website or to archive it
in an institutional or disciplinary repository, please use either a pre-print or a post-print of
your manuscript in accordance with the publication release for your article and our
‘‘Online Rights for Journal Articles’’ (www.hogrefe.com/journals).
Original Articles and Reviews
How to Beat Procrastination
The Role of Goal Focus
Kathrin Krause and Alexandra M. Freund
Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Abstract. Procrastination, defined as the subjectively aversive inability to initiate or
complete the pursuit of a given goal, is a common phenomenon in academic
contexts. This theoretical paper presents a dynamic model that centers on the role of
goal focus in influencing procrastination during goal pursuit. Our central hypothesis
is that focusing on the means of goal pursuit (i.e., adopting a process focus) reduces
procrastination, particularly when fear of failure is high. Focusing on the means
should decrease the salience of performance outcomes and thereby reduce fear of
failure. This, in turn, should facilitate the initiation and maintenance of goal pursuit.
In contrast, when means are perceived as unpleasant (high task aversiveness),
focusing more on the outcome of goal pursuit (i.e., adopting an outcome focus)
should reduce procrastination by directing attention away from the means while
highlighting the importance of goal achievement. Furthermore, the model takes
account of dynamic contextual factors, particularly the distance to a given deadline.
Keywords: procrastination, goal focus, self-regulation, fear of failure, motivation
Imagine the predicament of a student facing the typical
course requirement of passing the final exam. She knows
she has to start preparing fairly soon but, for some reason,
she just cannot get started. She tires quickly when trying to
read the textbook and gets distracted by other activities
such as long-neglected household chores or updating her
Facebook page. She feels the pressure to start studying,
but simply cannot bring herself to do so. In other words,
she is procrastinating.
Procrastination is defined as the tendency to delay the
initiation or completion of goal pursuit to the point of dis-
comfort (Howell & Watson, 2007; Solomon & Rothblum,
1984). Procrastination is widespread and, as Schouwenburg
and Groenewoud (2001, p. 238) put it: ‘‘a certain amount of
procrastination belongs to normal behavior.’’ Thus, most
people procrastinate at some point in their lives and do so
more in some contexts than in others. Because of the high
incidence of procrastination in the academic context
(Helmke & Schrader, 2000), the present paper examines
procrastination in the academic domain.
Why should we care about procrastination? The most
compelling reason is probably that procrastination is associ-
ated with a number of negative outcomes such as lower sub-
jective and objective task performance and completion (e.g.,
Beswick, Rothblum, & Mann, 1988; Steel, Brothen, &
Wambach, 2001; Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Vansteenkiste,
Sierens, Soenens, Luyckx, & Lens, 2009). Meta-analyses
demonstrate a negative relationship between procrastination
and grades (Steel, 2007; van Eerde, 2003). Although the asso-
ciation between procrastination and objective performance is
of small to moderate size, subjective evaluations of perfor-
mance might be lowered by procrastination, which, in turn,
might affect self-efficacy and fear of failure. This could result
in a vicious circle by increasing future procrastination (e.g.,
Helmke & Schrader, 2000). With regard to affective conse-
quences, Steel et al. (2001) reported a significant correlation
between self-reported procrastination and negative affect.
Moreover, the definition of procrastination stresses that a
delay of action constitutes a case of procrastination only if
it is accompanied by emotional discomfort. Students know
that they are worse off by not pursuing the goal as planned
but they still cannot bring themselves to do so. This knowl-
edge leads to emotional discomfortand negativeaffect (Steel,
2007; Wolters, 2003). Schraw, Wadkins, and Olafson (2007)
found that students experienced fatigue, stress, guilt, anxiety,
and a lower quality of life as a result of procrastination (see
also Beck, Koons, & Milgrim, 2000; Sirois, Melia-Gordon,
& Pychyl, 2003; Tice & Baumeister, 1997).
How can one overcome procrastination? This theoreti-
cal paper presents a motivational framework centering on
the role of goal focus (process vs. outcome focus) for pro-
crastination. More specifically, we investigate whether it is
more beneficial for overcoming procrastination to focus on
the means of goal pursuit (e.g., review lecture notes, discuss
questions with fellow students), or to focus on the outcome
(e.g., think about the importance and consequences of
Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013
DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000153
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
passing the final exam) in order to initiate and maintain
goal-relevant action. We present a dynamic model that out-
lines the change in adaptiveness of process and outcome
focus for overcoming procrastination over the course of
goal pursuit. Although our model is proposed to hold across
different goal domains, in this article we focus primarily on
the academic context, as procrastination is a very prevalent
phenomenon in this domain.
Previous research on procrastination has identified fear
of failure, task aversiveness, and self-efficacy as central
predictors of procrastination (e.g., van Eerde, 2000;
Wolters, 2003), and has focused on individual differences
in these variables for predicting procrastination (Ferrari,
Johnson, & McCown, 1995; Helmke & Schrader, 2000;
van Eerde, 2003). Less is known about the processes that
link individual differences to procrastination and their inter-
action with contextual variables such as task characteristics
(van Eerde, 2000) or temporal distance to the goal (Moon
& Illingworth, 2005). The central aim of this theoretical
paper is to address this gap in the literature by proposing
a dynamic model that relates procrastination to goal focus
and includes antecedents of procrastination affecting this
relationship as well as consequences of procrastination.
The model is dynamic in that it considers the development
of procrastination and its changes over time and across con-
texts. For excellent reviews of current state of the literature
on procrastination we refer the reader to Klingsieck (2013),
Schouwenburg (1995), van Eerde (2000), or Flett,
Blankstein, and Martin (1995).
Defining Procrastination From
a Dynamic Perspective
The definition of procrastination as the tendency to delay
initiation or completion of goal pursuit implies that procras-
tination can occur in different phases of goal pursuit. Helm-
ke and Schrader (2000; Schraw et al., 2007) integrated
procrastination in the academic context into the Rubicon
model of action phases by H. Heckhausen (1989).
Heckhausen’s model contains four distinct phases: (1) the
pre-decisional phase (deciding on whether or not to adopt
a goal), (2) the pre-actional phase (planning goal-relevant
action by formulating implementation intentions), (3) the
actional phase (initiating and maintaining goal-relevant
action), and, after having reached the goal, (4) the post-
actional phase (evaluating the means and the results of
the action). Helmke and Schrader assume that procrastina-
tion is the result of failures in self-regulatory processes (see
Table 1). Thus, in the pre-decisional phase, low self-
efficacy beliefs, fear of failure, and self-handicapping can
undermine learning efforts. Self-efficacy beliefs are
people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce effects
(Bandura, 1997). First, these low self-efficacy beliefs may
prevent students from evaluating their learning attempts
as effective. Second, looming exams may evoke fear of
failure and result in delaying the decision to start studying.
Third, as a means of protecting their self-esteem, students
might postpone the decision to start studying in order to
be able to blame a low grade on external factors such as
lack of time (i.e., self-handicapping).
The factors contributing to procrastination in the pre-
actional and the actional phase are very similar. In the
pre-actional phase people plan the ‘‘how,’’ ‘‘when,’’ and
‘‘why’’ of an action. During the actional phase, these plans
are implemented and, if necessary, reviewed and revised.
Hence, procrastination can be a result of inadequate plan-
ning (Schwarzer, 1999). However, planning is a double-
edged sword: Although making concrete plans has been
shown to enhance subsequent action implementation (e.g.,
Gollwitzer & Brandsttter, 1997; Schmitz & Wiese,
1999), making excessive plans can be used as a strategy
todelayworkontheactualtask(Helmke&Schrader,
2000). In the actional phase, procrastination also refers to
problems of maintaining goal-relevant actions.
During the course of action, people may interrupt or
even stop their goal-relevant activities. Schwarzer (1996)
proposes that this might be due to coping doubts. Coping
doubts are self-doubts about one’s ability to cope with chal-
lenges and setbacks during goal pursuit. Coping doubts can
lead to a lack of persistence and an engagement in more
pleasant or less difficult alternative activities. According
to Frank (1989), the feeling of guilt that usually accompa-
nies procrastination helps to compete with falling for these
Table 1. Incorporation of procrastination into Heckhausen’s Rubicon Model (1989) according to Helmke and Schrader
(2000)
Decision Action initiation Deadline
Pre-decisional phase Pre-actional phase Actional phase Post-actional phase
Contributors to procrastination
Low self-efficacy beliefs Inefficient time
management strategies
Lack of control processes Negative evaluation has
consequences on subsequent
learning process
Fear of failure Fear of failure Self-doubt
Self-handicapping State orientation Fear of failure
Poor goal setting Excessive planning Lack of persistence
Attractive alternatives
Coping doubts
2 K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
European Psychologist 2013 Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing
attractive alternatives. Wanting to stop this feeling might be
the reason why students start to reengage in goal pursuit.
Difficulties in maintaining goal-relevant actions might also
be due to interference through fear of failure. As will be
explained in more detail below, we posit that focusing on
the means rather than the outcome of goal pursuit might
help to overcome fear of failure.
In the post-actional phase, one’s evaluation of the course
of goal-relevant actions and their consequences (i.e., goal
achievement or failure) as well as a cost-benefit analysis
are important for future goal setting and goal pursuit and
will thus also influence future procrastination. For instance,
if students repeatedly experience a lack of self-efficacy as a
consequence of previous procrastination, subsequent goal
setting and goal pursuit are likely to be influenced nega-
tively, especially with regard to self-efficacy beliefs, self-
esteem, fear of failure, and coping doubts. Taken together,
Helmke and Schrader’s model demonstrates which of the
key self-regulatory processes might be disturbed when pro-
crastination occurs during goal setting and goal pursuit.
Goal Focus
The definition of procrastination outlined above includes
the presence of a goal. However, the literature on procras-
tination has focused primarily on person characteristics or
situational factors. In contrast, the question of which cogni-
tive goal characteristics might be related to procrastination
has been largely neglected (for exceptions see, e.g., Blunt &
Pychyl, 2005). We propose that, in addition to person and
situational characteristics, goal-related constructs such as
the cognitive representation of goals primarily in terms of
the means (process focus) or the outcome (outcome focus)
might play an important role for procrastination.
Goals can be conceptualized as cognitive representa-
tions linking means to desired ends (e.g., Kruglanski,
1996). In other words, goal representations always com-
prise both means and ends. These two components of goals,
however, are not necessarily equally salient for each given
goal and at each given point in time (e.g., Freund,
Hennecke, & Riediger, 2010; Freund, Hennecke, &
Mustafic, 2012). People might focus primarily on the ends
or the outcome of goal pursuit (e.g., to receive a good grade
on the final exam) (Sansone & Thoman, 2005), or focus
primarily on the means or the process of goal pursuit
(e.g., reading a textbook or joining a study group). Process
focus denotes a stronger cognitive salience of the ‘‘how’’ or
means of goal pursuit (e.g., ‘‘How can I get a good grade on
the final?’’); outcome focus relates to the ‘‘why’’ or conse-
quences of goal pursuit (e.g., ‘‘Why do I want to get a good
grade on the final exam?’’) (Pham & Taylor, 1999). Thus,
goal focus refers to the relative salience of the outcome
compared to the process of goal pursuit. We can imagine
the person’s goal focus as beaming a flashlight on either
the means or the end of goal pursuit (Freund et al.,
2012). Conceptually, then, goal focus constitutes one
dimension with the two poles of a predominant focus on
the outcome or the process of goal pursuit. A person might
have a very balanced representation of a given goal in terms
of its means and its consequences, not adopting a focus on
either of two goal components. Note, that even if a person
might habitually tend to adopt one of the two foci when
pursuing a goal, goal focus can change depending on such
factors as motivational phase, goal orientation towards
change versus stability, or age (Freund et al., 2012).
1
In
the next section, we elaborate on the theoretical role of goal
focus for procrastination.
A Dynamic Model of Procrastination
and Goal Focus
Our model centers on the question which of the two goal
foci is more beneficial for the initiation and maintenance
of goal-relevant actions, for goal achievement, and for sub-
jective well-being. Research concerning the pursuit of dif-
ficult goals such as losing weight or starting with regular
exercise points to the adaptiveness of adopting a process
focus to maintain goal pursuit over time (Freund &
Hennecke, 2012; Freund et al., 2010). Similarly, when pre-
paring for an exam, mentally simulating the process of goal
pursuit rather than focusing on the outcome is related to
better performance on the exam (Pham & Taylor, 1999).
However, studies by Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997,
1999) suggest that the adaptiveness of goal focus for the
acquisition and mastery of skills depends on the learning
phase. In line with a dynamic view of motivational and
action phases, we expect the adaptiveness of process and
outcome focus to change over the course of goal pursuit.
We will elaborate on the dynamic aspect later.
Let us start with a static ‘‘snapshot’’ of the underlying
mechanisms of the relationship between goal focus and pro-
crastination in the actional phase. The main hypothesis of
the model is that a process focus is negatively related to
procrastination during the nonurgent actional phase (see
Figure 1). Picture again the student who wants to start
studying for an exam. There are several reasons why a pro-
cessfocusshouldhelptoreduceprocrastination:
Concreteness
First, a process focus provides guidelines for concrete
means of action (Carver & Scheier, 1998). McCrea,
Liberman, Trope, and Sherman (2008) showed that
people are less likely to procrastinate when a more concrete
1
There are a number of psychological constructs – most notably intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000) and mastery
versus performance motivation (e.g., Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995) – that have some conceptual relationship with goal focus. For a detailed
elaboration of the differentiation of goal focus from these constructs see Freund et al. (2012).
K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination 3
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013
cognitive representation of a given task is induced. One
explanation for this finding is that more abstract or
higher-level construals of a task are related to a greater psy-
chological as well as temporal distance (Trope & Liberman,
2003). A greater perceived distance might, in turn, induce
people to locate the timing for acting on a goal in the distant
future. In other words, when students perceive a goal as
temporally distant, procrastination is more likely than when
students perceive the goal as proximal and requiring imme-
diate action. As proposed by construal-level theory (Trope
& Liberman, 2010), representations of a goal in the near
future lead to a more concrete cognitive construal involving
actions (i.e., process focus) rather than outcomes. If a goal
is construed more concretely, and it is highly structured, its
perceived proximity increases (Liberman, Trope, McCrea,
& Sherman, 2007). In other words, a concrete representa-
tion of a goal in terms of the required means rather than
its outcomes should increase performance and decrease
procrastination (Locke & Latham, 2002; McCrea et al.,
2008).
When focusing on the present or the immediate future,
the context as well as the actions necessary to reach a goal
are at the center of attention, making it more likely that a
person will engage in action planning and in forming
implementation intentions (e.g., Gollwitzer, 1999), which
increases the likelihood of action initiation. For example,
creating a schedule that specifies what to study when and
how should make it easier for a person to actually engage
in these behaviors as well as to accurately monitor the
learning process. This kind of planning is often regarded
as a learning strategy that is negatively related to procrasti-
nation (Howell & Buro, 2009; Wolters, 2003).
Standard of Comparison
An outcome focus provides a clear standard for comparing
the current with the desired state. According to Carver and
Scheier (1998), this should help to keep goal-relevant
actions ‘‘on track’’ and, hence, should be adaptive for goal
pursuit and achievement. We do not disagree with this
important function of adopting an outcome focus but pro-
pose a more differentiated perspective regarding the rela-
tionship between outcome focus and procrastination: An
outcome focus and a comparison of the actual and desired
state might come at an emotional and motivational cost
when the discrepancy between the current and desired state
is large. This is particularly true in the early phases of goal
pursuit, for example when a student experiences the differ-
ence between not having started to study for an exam as the
current state and having a good command of the knowledge
summarized in the textbook as a desired state. Focusing on
the desired end state (i.e., adopting an outcome focus)
draws attention to the negative discrepancy between the
current and the desired state (Freund et al., 2010). This
might lead to negative affect, especially when goal progress
is slow (Carver & Scheier, 1998). Negative affect, in turn,
might undermine motivation (Custers & Aarts, 2005).
Affect During Goal Pursuit
If pursuing a given goal is associated with negative affect, it
is necessary to delay gratification until the goal is attained
(e.g., Mischel & Ayduk, 2004). For instance, for many stu-
dents, studying for an exam is less pleasant than going out
with friends. In addition, partying offers immediate rewards
whereas the – albeit maybe much greater – fruits of
studying might lie in the far future. As pointed out by
Howell and Watson (2007, p. 168) ‘‘procrastinators reveal
a tendency toward temporal discounting, wherein the value
of distant, large rewards is downplayed relative to more
immediately available, smaller rewards.’’
In some cases, procrastination may function as a tool for
mood repair. Tice and Bratslavsky (2000) showed that,
compared to participants in a neutral or positive mood,
Figure 1. Dynamic model:
The relation between pro-
crastination and goal focus
during the actional phase.
4 K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
European Psychologist 2013 Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing
participants in a sad mood spent less time practicing for an
upcoming math test and more time procrastinating by
engaging in other activities. In other words, sad participants
attempted repairing their sad mood by engaging in other
activities at the expense of working on a less pleasant but
more important task (i.e., preparing for an exam).
Focusing on the means of goal pursuit facilitates the
planning of the specific steps necessary to achieve the goal
and should thereby increase the utility of goal-relevant
action by reducing the delay of rewards (Steel & Kçnig,
2006). Not surprisingly, then, a study by Freund et al.
(2010) showed that focusing on the means rather than the
outcome of goal pursuit was positively related to increases
in subjective well-being over time. In addition, enjoying the
means of goal pursuit (i.e., a ‘‘the way is the goal’’ attitude)
should reduce procrastination, as it renders the task more
pleasurable and hence more likely to be carried out
(Harackiewicz, Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984; Locke &
Latham, 2002). We assume that a process focus offers more
opportunities for positive reinforcement than an outcome
focus if goal pursuit itself is perceived as rewarding.
Flexibility After Failure
Process focus also offers more opportunities to get back on
the wagon after failure (Freund & Hennecke, 2012). More
specifically, we propose, that process focus helps to main-
tain motivation in the face of setbacks such as getting dis-
tracted from work. Think again of the students preparing
for an exam. As mentioned above, attractive alternatives
to studying such as meeting with friends, going to a party,
or watching a favorite TV show might lure students away
from their desks. Procrastination, a form of giving in to
such temptations, might be considered a failure concerning
the goal of studying. Adopting a process focus can help
mastering such failures during goal pursuit by keeping
attention on the means rather than on one’s lack of progress
towards the outcome. In fact, Hennecke and Freund (2010)
showed that a process focus led to better self-regulation and
continued goal pursuit when participants experienced fail-
ures and problems during goal pursuit. If students fail in
employing a specific means, process focus should increase
the likelihood of substituting it with another means instead
of procrastinating, thereby offering more flexibility in over-
coming obstacles. For example, instead of procrastinating
by employing the means of reading a textbook alone at
home, the student can replace it by the means of studying
in a group together with peers.
Moderating Conditions and Influencing
Factors
Based on previous research, we take a number of moderat-
ing factors into account to understand the relationship
between goal focus and procrastination. The literature on
procrastination agrees that the main antecedents of procras-
tination are fear of failure, task aversiveness, and low
self-efficacy (e.g., Ferrari, 1991; Rothblum, Solomon, &
Murakami, 1986; Schraw et al., 2007; Steel, 2007; van
Eerde, 2000). As task aversiveness should be more strongly
related to the means of goal pursuit, and fear of failure more
strongly related to the outcome, we suggest that the rela-
tionship between process focus and procrastination is mod-
erated by task aversiveness and fear of failure (see
Figure 1). Furthermore, we include self-efficacy because
it refers to the person’s evaluation of the means. We
hypothesize that process focus is positively related to
self-efficacy.
Fear of Failure and Procrastination
A number of studies have shown that fear of failure is pos-
itively related to procrastination (e.g., Haycock, McCarthy,
& Skay, 1998; Lay, Edwards, Parker, & Endler, 1989;
Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). For example, in a study with
a group of college students, Helmke and Schrader (2000)
found that trait as well as state procrastination was substan-
tially correlated with state fear of failure (for further find-
ings, see Ferrari & Tice, 2000; Flett, Blankstein, Hewitt,
& Koledin, 1992; Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). Haghbin,
McCaffrey, and Pychyl (2012) found that the relation
between fear of failure and procrastination was positive
only for students who perceived their levels of competence
as low.
There is some empirical evidence for both causal direc-
tions of the relationship between procrastination and fear of
failure. On the one hand, procrastination has been found to
increase anxiety and depression (Flett, Blankstein, &
Martin, 1995; McCown & Johnson, 1991; Milgram &
Toubiana, 1999). On the other hand, procrastination can
also serve as a technique to avoid a fear-inducing stimulus
such as studying for a challenging exam (Milgram,
Mey-Tal, & Levison, 1998). When one fears the task at
hand, procrastinating results in relief from anxiety, which
negatively reinforces procrastination behavior (Solomon
& Rothblum, 1984). Fear of failure may thus lead to task
avoidance (van Eerde, 2000), resulting in a cyclical behav-
ioral pattern in which task avoidance becomes habitual
(Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000). Accordingly, Schraw and
colleagues (2007) refer to procrastination as a coping
strategy.
In general, the empirical evidence suggests a moderate
effect size for the impact of fear of failure on procrastina-
tion (e.g., Schouwenburg, 1992; van Eerde, 2003; see also
Senecal, Koestner, & Vallerand, 1995). In the following,
we propose that fear of failure might interact with process
focus in models predicting procrastination.
Fear of Failure Moderates the Relationship
Between Process Focus and Procrastination
We propose that process focus might help to reduce pro-
crastination when fear of failure is high. Outcomes are
higher than means in the goal hierarchy (e.g., Austin &
K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination 5
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013
Vancouver, 1996; Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). The higher
a goal is in the hierarchy, the more likely it is that events
threatening goal achievement elicit rumination (Martin &
Tesser, 1989). Focusing on the outcome of a goal, such
as passing an exam, also makes the possible consequences
of failing more accessible and, thereby, intensifies fear of
failure. In contrast, focusing on the actions required for
passing the exam should bring the means to the foreground
and push the possible consequences into the background of
attention. By focusing on the means, the goal might seem
more manageable. In line with this perspective, Pham and
Taylor (1999) showed that adopting a process focus
reduced anxiety about failure in students preparing for an
exam, which in turn enhanced exam performance. On the
basis of these findings, we suggest that process focus is par-
ticularly beneficial in reducing procrastination for students
high in fear of failure.
Task Aversiveness Predicts Procrastination
The aversiveness of a task, which refers to how unpleasant
people consider a task, is positively related to procrastina-
tion (e.g., Blunt & Pychyl, 2000). Senecal, Lavoie, and
Koestner (1997) found that task aversiveness was associ-
ated with procrastination when participants expected their
performance to be evaluated, as is typically the case in aca-
demic settings. Blunt and Pychyl (2000) suggest that the
anticipated consequences or incentives associated with a
particular task also determine how aversive a person con-
siders a task. Hence, task aversiveness can refer to the pro-
cess of goal pursuing or to the anticipated consequences
(e.g., performance evaluation). In our model, fear of failure
refers to the aversiveness of the anticipated consequences
of an action (e.g., failing an exam), whereas task aversive-
ness refers to the aversiveness of the means to accomplish a
given task (e.g., dislike of studying for an exam). Steel
(2007) concluded from his meta-analysis that people pro-
crastinate more often when performing unpleasant than
pleasant tasks. Blunt and Pychyl (2000) identified boredom,
frustration, and resentment as relatively stable components
of task aversiveness. In their study, they found a significant
correlation between task aversiveness and procrastination
during the actional phase (referring to the Rubicon model
by Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987).
Task Aversiveness Moderates the
Relationship Between Process Focus
and Procrastination
If a student perceives the means to achieve a goal as aver-
sive, focusing on them should increase the likelihood of
procrastination in order to avoid engaging in unpleasant
behaviors. Hence, we assume that process focus increases
procrastination when the means are perceived as aversive.
When the process of goal pursuit (but not the outcome) is
experienced as aversive, it might actually help to focus
on the outcome of goal pursuit. This might increase the
perceived importance of achieving the goal and hence
motivate a student to swallow the bitter pill of engaging
in the unpleasant task to attain the outcome. Consequently,
changing from a process to an outcome focus might be
more adaptive in certain situations, for example, when the
means are perceived as highly aversive and motivation
evolves mainly from the outcome (Freund et al., 2012).
In other words, the higher a student values the outcome,
the more likely s/he engages in the task even if the means
are aversive (Eccles, 1983).
Linking Self-Efficacy, Procrastination,
and Process Focus
The literature suggests that self-efficacy is strongly related
to procrastination (Ferrari, Parker, & Ware, 1992; Haycock
et al., 1998; Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008; Wolters,
2004). Self-efficacy plays an important role in procrastina-
tion in at least three ways: First, self-efficacy influences the
perception of a goal or task. A student with high self-effi-
cacy believes that s/he has the capacity, the competence,
and the resources to manage the task. Schwarzer, Mller,
and Greenglass (1999) refer to this as ‘‘can-do’’ cognitions.
Second, after engaging in a task, highly self-efficacious
people persist longer, recover more quickly from setbacks,
and invest more effort in the task (Schwarzer et al., 1999;
Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Third, the experience of
being able to ward off distractions and attractive alterna-
tives strengthens a person’s self-efficacy (Schunk & Swartz,
1993). As depicted in Figure 1, we suggest that there is a
transfer effect: The experience of being able to manage
the task by employing one means might increase the per-
son’s expectation in being able to successfully employ
another means (Bandura, 1977). Adopting a process focus
can strengthen self-efficacy by focusing one’s attention on
the means and thereby making a task seem more manage-
able than when one focuses on the outcome. Compatible
with results from Haghbin et al. (2012), procrastination
should decrease as the pursuit of the goal and its completion
become even more likely.
Dynamics of Goal Focus and
Procrastination During Goal Pursuit
Until now, we have focused on the mechanisms underlying
the relationship between goal focus and procrastination. As
was elaborated in the context of Helmke and Schrader’s
(2000) dynamic model of procrastination, H. Heckhausen’s
Rubicon model of action phases (1989; Heckhausen &
Gollwitzer, 1987) is particularly well suited for conceptual-
izing the process of goal setting and goal pursuit over time.
Integrating goal focus into the Rubicon model, Freund et al.
(2012) provided a dynamic model of goal focus. Following
this approach, we take a dynamic perspective on the rela-
tionship of goal focus and procrastination over the course
of goal pursuit.
6 K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
European Psychologist 2013 Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing
In the pre-decisional phase, a student has to decide
whether or not s/he wants to adopt a goal. In order to decide
if a goal is worth pursuing, the student analyzes the whole
situation including the consequences of goal achievement.
Blunt and Pychyl (2000) found that in the pre-decisional
phase a lack of personal meaning of a project is associated
with higher task aversiveness and higher procrastination in
the decision to engage in the project. The more the student
values the outcome the more likely s/he will engage in goal
pursuit (Eccles, 1983). Therefore, Freund et al. (2012) pro-
pose that an outcome focus is most likely in this phase.
However, as most goals are predefined in the academic
context (e.g., as class requirements), we do not elaborate
in more detail about procrastination in this phase.
During the pre-actional phase, that is, after having set a
goal and before engaging in goal-relevant action, people
plan the implementation of intentions in terms of how,
when, and where to start (i.e., implementation intentions,
Gollwitzer, 1999). Gollwitzer and colleagues (for an over-
view, see Gollwitzer, 1996) demonstrated in a series of
studies that implementation intentions contributed to actu-
ally engaging in goal pursuit and increased actual rates of
goal completion (e.g., Brandsttter, Heimbeck, Malzacher,
& Frese, 2003; Koole & Van’t Spijker, 2000). Adopting a
process focus, i.e., focusing on the goal-related means
and actions during the pre-actional phase, should decrease
procrastination (Gollwitzer & Brandsttter, 1997).
In the actional phase, people engage in goal pursuit
to achieve their goal. According to Heckhausen and
Gollwitzer (1987), this phase is associated with a predom-
inant focus on the outcome on a rather abstract level of rep-
resentation. In contrast, Freund and colleagues (2012) posit
that focusing on the outcome might cause a person to
overlook good opportunities to implement goal-relevant
plans and thus delay goal pursuit. Moreover, based on
J. Heckhausen’s (1999) distinction between a non-urgent
and an urgent actional phase, we consider that the adaptive-
ness of goal focus might change over the course of the
actional phase (see Figure 2).
When pursuing a long-term goal like writing a compre-
hensive term paper (compared to a short-term goal like
reading a paper for the next class), focusing on the activities
related to goal pursuit (process focus) might help a person
remain motivated more than focusing on the distant out-
come (outcome focus) during the non-urgent phase. As
elaborated in more detail by Freund and colleagues
(2012), the hypothesis of a predominant process focus dur-
ing the actional phase is consistent with the automotive
model by Bargh and Gollwitzer (1994). According to the
automotive model, the repeated activation of a goal in a
certain situation leads to an association between the goal
and situational cues. Subsequently, the situational cues
can automatically trigger goal-relevant actions without the
person being consciously aware of the respective goal. Goal
pursuit, then, does not require conscious awareness of the
outcome in order to initiate and maintain goal-relevant
actions. This suggests that procrastination is less likely
whenapersonfollowscertainroutinessuchasalways
working on the term paper at the same time and place so
as to increase the number of situational cues that automat-
ically trigger goal-relevant actions. Nevertheless, during the
pursuit of long-term goals, one is likely to encounter
unplanned situations and new opportunities. As adopting
a process focus makes other means more cognitively acces-
sible, it should help a person to react flexibly to new cir-
cumstances (Freund et al., 2012). For instance, if meeting
with fellow students in a study group is not possible, a stu-
dent with a process focus should be able to switch to other
means more easily, such as using flash cards or practicing
multiple-choice questions. Thus, in the non-urgent phase,
adopting a process focus should help to counteract procras-
tination by maintaining goal pursuit even when encounter-
ing problems or new situations during goal pursuit (this
phase is depicted in Figure 1). However, this might change
during the urgent phase, that is, when the deadline for goal
achievement (e.g., a final exam) is very near. Deadlines
increase a person’s effort in goal pursuit. Several longitudi-
nal studies have shown that procrastination decreases when
a deadline approaches (Moon & Illingworth, 2005; Pychyl,
Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000; Schouwenburg, 1995). As
Schraw and colleagues (2007) pointed out, people who pro-
crastinate also tend to organize their academic life around
deadlines.
Figure 2. The shift: The
dynamics of goal focus and
procrastination during goal
pursuit.
K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination 7
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013
The focus on an approaching deadline means constantly
comparing the current state with the distant goal. This
might increase fear of failure and, thereby, procrastination.
Furthermore, if students who still have a lot of time to study
focus on the deadline too early, they might perceive goal
pursuit as exhausting (after all, one still has a long time
to go), which might also result in procrastination. In con-
trast, concentrating on the means of goal pursuit should
reduce fear of failure and, thereby, procrastination (Pham
& Taylor, 1999). In the urgent phase, however, the negative
consequences of missing a deadline might function as an
incentive to organize action in a timely manner (Ariely &
Wertenbroch, 2002). Here, approaching a deadline should
increase the likelihood that one closely monitors the dis-
tance to the goal (J. Heckhausen, 1999), which, in turn, pro-
vides a clear comparison standard and thereby increases the
likelihood of goal achievement (e.g., Locke & Latham,
2002). In other words, approaching a deadline should
increase the salience of the outcome when actual goal
attainment becomes more and more proximal. One of the
processes contributing to the differences between the two
phases might be temporal discounting. Temporal discount-
ing refers to the observation that large rewards in the distant
future are valued less than smaller but immediate rewards
(Frederick, Loewenstein, & O’Donoghue, 2002). Thus, if
in the non-urgent phase more immediate rewards are pres-
ent while studying for a distant exam, procrastination is
likely to occur. As elaborated above, a process focus damp-
ens this effect because it offers more opportunities for posi-
tive reinforcement along the way. In the urgent phase,
however, an approaching deadline makes the positive con-
sequences of attaining the goal (and the negative conse-
quences of failing to attain it) more salient, thereby
decreasing procrastination. In fact, in one study conducted
in our group, we found that deadlines induced a shift from
process to outcome focus in university students writing a
term paper (Walter, 2009). When a deadline is very close,
a person has to overcome all factors contributing to procras-
tination (e.g., task aversiveness) by focusing his/her atten-
tion on the outcome and, thereby, increasing its
subjective importance. The perceived or actual negative
consequences of missing a deadline may function as a
strong incentive to engage in goal pursuit and thereby
decrease procrastination (Schraw et al., 2007). This should
be even more the case when focusing on the outcome dur-
ing the urgent phase. As a consequence, adopting an out-
come focus when approaching a deadline should increase
the monitoring of closing the gap between the actual and
the desired state (see Figure 2). Moreover, one could argue
that that the goal pursuer can now profit from the self-effi-
cacy s/he has built during the non-urgent phase and is better
able to master this last phase of goal pursuit. Hence, the
anticipated negative consequences of failing to reach the
goal might dominate over all other concerns or task aver-
siveness and, as a consequence, reduce procrastination.
Taken together, with respect to procrastination, our
model assumes that a process focus is more adaptive than
an outcome focus in the non-urgent part of the actional
phase. A process focus allows a person to be flexible with
regard to new opportunities or situational changes
(Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). When a deadline
approaches and a person enters the urgent phase, the out-
come might become more salient (Freund et al., 2012). In
sum, with respect to procrastination, it might be most ben-
eficial to shift from process focus to outcome focus when
the urgent part of the action phase begins.
Finally, in the post-actional phase, the focus lies on the
outcome, as it centers on goal evaluation. Here, procrastina-
tion might affect the person’s reflection processes and their
future decisions. For example, students could procrastinate
on checking their grade online or they could delay the deci-
sion to sign up for a repetition class to take an exam for the
second time. In a study with psychology students, Sirois
(2004) showed that procrastination was related to down-
ward counterfactual thinking. Students who found them-
selves in an anxiety-provoking situation were more likely
to procrastinate and, moreover, to avoid thoughts about
ways in which things could have been better. Focusing
on the outcome in the post-actional phase opens up the pos-
sibility to either acknowledge goal success and boost self-
efficacy for the next goal pursuit or to disengage from
the current goal by engaging in the pursuit of new goals.
Taken together, both procrastination and goal focus are
dynamic constructs that depend on the motivational phase.
However, the dynamics are not only of a temporal nature
but also concern the role of the context in procrastination.
Dynamics of Procrastination as Action
in Context
The context and conditions of studying for an exam are
highly relevant for the development of procrastination in
general (Senecal et al., 1997) and for the relationship
between procrastination and goal focus in particular (see
Figure 1). As Wolters (2003) pointed out, ‘‘procrastination
may be fostered by context-specific factors that promote
students’fear of failure, evaluation anxiety, feelings of
incompetence, or task aversiveness’’ (p. 179). Context-spe-
cific factors that help a student to deal with procrastination
are, for example, the absence of distractors, social control
(by peers, parents, or teachers), daily routines, the amount
of detailed planning, and a reward system (e.g., Dietz,
Hofer, & Fries, 2007; Schraw et al., 2007; van Eerde,
2000). The degree to which a task is externally structured
seems to play a particularly important role. Pychyl (2011)
suggested that research on procrastination should take into
account notions of responsibility and autonomy. Thus, we
willfocusonthefrequencyoffeedbackduringgoalpursuit
(as a guide for actions) and the degree of autonomy in pur-
suing a given task (as an indicator of the lack of external
structure), and their relation to goal focus. Using the exam-
ple of a student’s transition from high school to college, we
will compare some of the characteristics of high school
and college, two learning environments in which
8 K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
European Psychologist 2013 Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing
procrastination occurs frequently, with respect to academic
procrastination.
Feedback Frequency and Autonomy
At high school, the degrees of freedom regarding studying
are much more constrained compared to college (Wild,
2000). These constraints are partly due to a much more reg-
ulated study schedule at high school. In Europe, high-
school students usually attend classes in the morning and
in the early afternoon and are expected to do their home-
work in the late afternoon or evening. The homework is
often due the next day, leading to a highly regulated study
schedule that helps students to structure their day and to
implement daily study routines. Daily routines can enhance
goal pursuit and decrease procrastination (Dietz et al.,
2007). Furthermore, high-school students typically receive
frequent and relatively prompt feedback. Latham and Seijts
(1999) claim that ‘‘feedback functions as a moderator of
goal effects because the combination of goals plus feedback
is more effective than goals only’’ (p. 708). According to
goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 2002), goal-progress
feedback informs people about how to best pursue their
goals. It motivates them to work on the goal by monitoring
their progress and by showing them that sub-goals can be
achieved (Schunk & Swartz, 1993). Additionally, tempo-
rally close feedback minimizes the requirement for delay
of gratification (Howell & Watson, 2007). We assume that
the highly structured context of high-school students simu-
lates a constant urgent phase. Thus, the high-school context
makes the adoption of an outcome focus more likely and
adaptive.
Van Eerde (2000) notes that a certain amount of auton-
omy is a necessary precondition for procrastination. One
significant change in study contexts when transitioning
from high school to college is that the frequency of feed-
back decreases substantially while autonomy with respect
to how, when, and what to study increases (Raymore,
Barber, Eccles, & Godbey, 1999). College students have
to attend classes but they might be spread out across the
day, sometimes with a number of hours of unstructured
time between classes. Moreover, course requirements are
due with more time between receiving the task and having
to hand it in. This places higher demands on self-regulation
(van Eerde, 2000). Moreover, feedback is typically more
delayed, which necessitates greater ability to persist in a
task without immediate gratification (Mischel & Ayduk,
2004). During the study process, college students have to
maintain their learning motivation over a longer period of
time, which requires a number of self-regulatory skills, such
as solving problems on their own, persisting in the face of
setbacks, and, importantly, warding off possible distrac-
tions. In contexts like these, that offer high degrees of free-
dom and only infrequent external feedback, it might be
particularly beneficial for college students to adopt a pro-
cess focus to counteract procrastination.
Thus, the specific study context plays an important role
for the adaptiveness of goal focus in reducing procrastina-
tion. In particular, the structuredness of the study context,
the degrees of freedom or autonomy, and the frequency
of feedback are likely to influence procrastination.
Summary, Empirical Implications,
and Conclusion
This article introduced the concept of goal focus to the
investigation of procrastination by presenting a dynamic
model of goal focus and procrastination. Our model pro-
poses that goal focus interacts with well-known antecedents
of procrastination, namely fear of failure, task aversiveness,
and self-efficacy. More specifically, we suggest that a pro-
cess focus might help by reducing the negative effect of
fear of failure during the initiation and maintenance of goal
pursuit. Furthermore, we propose that a process focus might
increase self-efficacy, which, in turn, is negatively related
to procrastination. However, adopting an outcome focus
might help coping with task aversiveness and reduce pro-
crastination when the very process of goal pursuit is per-
ceived as aversive. The model currently awaits direct
empirical tests. It is our hope that this article will stimulate
such empirical research. Although we have focused on pro-
crastination in the academic domain as a prototypical sam-
ple case in this article, the model is designed to be general
and can be applied to nonacademic contexts such as health
behaviors or work. Taking an ideographic approach, one
could also investigate procrastination regarding people’s
personal goals, for instance using Little’s Personal Projects
Analysis (for a similar approach see Blunt & Pychyl, 2005).
In the following, we mention the main three empirical
hypotheses that can be derived from our model.
First, the model postulates that the cognitive representa-
tion of the goal primarily in terms of its process or its out-
come could either increase or decrease procrastination
depending on the motivational phase, fear of failure, and
task aversiveness. Thus, empirical research needs to go
beyond person-related variables such as self-efficacy and
fear of failure and include the cognitive representation of
the goal. Second, the study of procrastination requires a
dynamic perspective on procrastination as changing over
the course of goal pursuit (Helmke & Schrader, 2000).
Likewise, we posit that the adaptiveness of goal focus var-
ies by motivational phase. A process focus is hypothesized
to be more beneficial than an outcome focus when one is
attempting to overcome procrastination during the non-
urgent actional phase. During the urgent phase (i.e., when
a deadline is very close), an outcome focus should increase
the importance goal achievement and thereby decrease pro-
crastination irrespective of task aversiveness. To test these
hypotheses, research needs to include multiple measure-
ment occasions that repeatedly assess procrastination and
its antecedents over time and motivational phases. One pos-
sible study that is currently undertaken entails a field study
repeatedly assessing students` goal focus, fear of failure,
task aversiveness, procrastination, and study behavior when
they study for an exam over a longer time period (i.e., from
the beginning of the study phase until after the exam).
K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination 9
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013
In another approach, we will manipulate students’goal
focus to be able to make better inferences about the causal
associations between goal focus and procrastination. A
third important implication of our model is that the context
needs to be considered as well. One very promising way of
studying the role of context might be a comparison of the
setting of high schools with that of colleges, as they differ
systematically on important dimensions (frequency of feed-
back, autonomy) that might contribute to procrastination.
This paper introduced a theoretical framework focusing
on the mechanisms underlying individual differences in
procrastination and their interaction with contextual vari-
ables. We emphasized the role of the cognitive representa-
tion of a goal more in terms of its means (process focus) or
its consequences (outcome focus) for procrastination.
Moreover, we have stressed the dynamic changes of the
role of goal focus for procrastination over the course of
the motivational process. Finally and importantly, the
model stresses the characteristics of the means (i.e., task
aversiveness) and the outcome (i.e., fear of failure) as mod-
erators for the impact of goal focus on procrastination.
Thus, our model integrates individual differences, motiva-
tional aspects as well as contextual influences. We maintain
that such a complex model is necessary when dealing with
such a complex phenomenon as procrastination. With the
exception of goal focus, these factors have been considered
in previous research on procrastination. However, none of
the existing research integrates the construct of goal focus
and the interactions of goal focus with task aversiveness
and fear of failure into a dynamic model considering the
different phases of goal setting and pursuit. Thus, the model
offers the possibility to make specific predictions for the
likelihood of procrastinating for each point in time during
goal pursuit depending on the goal focus, fear of failure,
and task aversiveness. This should also help in designing
interventions how to beat procrastination.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the Swiss
National Science Foundation (Project ‘‘Process and out-
comefocus–Theroleofage,’’ ID: 100014-116528; PI:
Alexandra M. Freund). The authors would like to thank
the Life-Management team at the University of Zurich
for helpful discussions of the work reported in this paper
and Kai Cortina, Jacquelynne Eccles, and Ralf Schwarzer
for their valuable input. Kathrin Krause is a fellow of the
International Max Planck Research School on the Life
Course (LIFE).
References
Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, dead-
lines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment.
Psychological Science, 13, 219–224. doi: 10.1111/1467-
9280.00441
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in
psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological
Bulletin, 3, 338–375. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–225. doi:
10.1037//0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New
York, NY: Freeman.
Bargh, J. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1994). Environmental control
over goal-directed action: Automatic and strategic contin-
gencies between situations and behavior. Nebraska Sympo-
sium on Motivation, 41, 71–124.
Beck, B. L., Koons, S. R., & Milgrim, D. L. (2000). Correlates
and consequences of behavioral procrastination: The effects
of academic procrastination, self-consciousness, self-esteem
and self-handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 15, 3–13.
Beswick, G., Rothblum, E. D., & Mann, L. (1988). Psycholog-
ical antecedents of student procrastination. Australian Psy-
chologist, 2, 207–217. doi: 10.1080/00050068808255605
Blunt, A. K., & Pychyl, T. P. (2000). Task aversiveness and
procrastination: A multi-dimensional approach to task
aversiveness across stages of personal projects. Personality
and Individual Differences, 28, 153–167. doi: 10.1016/
S0191-8869(99)00091-4
Blunt, A. K., & Pychyl, T. P. (2005). Project systems of
procrastinators: A personal project-analytic and action
control perspective. Personality and Individual Differences,
38, 1771–1780. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.
11.019
Brandsttter, V., Heimbeck, D., Malzacher, J. T., & Frese, M.
(2003). Goals need implementation intentions: The model of
action phases tested in the applied setting of continuing
education. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 12, 37–59. doi: 10.1080/13594320344000011
Brownlow, S., & Reasinger, R. D. (2000). Putting off until
tomorrow what is better done today: Academic procrastina-
tion as a function of motivation toward college work.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 15–34.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of
behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2005). Positive affect as implicit
motivator: On the nonconscious operation of behavioral
goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,
129–142. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.129
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of
goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of
behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi: 10.1207/
S15327965PLI1104_01
Dietz, F., Hofer, M., & Fries, S. (2007). Individual values,
learning routines, and academic procrastination. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 893–906. doi:
10.1348/000709906X169076
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories
and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two
perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors.
In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement
motives: Psychological and Sociological Approaches (pp.
78–146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Self-handicapping by procrastinators:
Protecting self-esteem, social-esteem or both? Journal of
Research in Personality, 25, 245–261. doi: 10.1016/0092-
6566(91)90018-L
Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-
handicap for men and women: A task-avoidance strategy in
a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in Personality, 34,
73–83. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1999.2261
10 K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
European Psychologist 2013 Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (Eds.). (1995).
.Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and
treatment. New York, NY: Plenum.
Ferrari, J. R., Parker, J. T., & Ware, C. B. (1992). Academic
procrastination: Personality correlates with Myers-Briggs
types, self-efficacy, and academic locus of control. Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 495–502.
Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Martin, T. R. (1995).
Procrastination, negative self-evaluation, and stress in
depression and anxiety. In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, &
W. G. McCown (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance:
Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 137–167). New York,
NY: Plenum.
Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., Hewitt, P. L., & Koledin, S.
(1992). Components of perfectionism and procrastination in
college students. Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 85–
94. doi: 10.2224/sbp.1992.20.2.85
Frank, R. (1989). Passions within reason. The strategic role of
the emotions. New York, NY: Norton.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time
discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal
of Economic Literature, 40, 351–401. doi: 10.1257/
002205102320161311
Freund, A. M., & Hennecke, M. (2012). Changing eating
behavior vs. losing weight. The role of goal focus for weight
loss in overweight women. Psychology and Health, 7,
25–42. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2011.570867
Freund, A. M., Hennecke, M., & Mustafic, M. (2012). On
means and ends: Process and outcome focus. In R. Ryan
(Ed.), Oxford handbook of motivation (pp. 280–300). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Freund, A. M., Hennecke, M., & Riediger, M. (2010). Age-
related differences in outcome and process goal focus.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 198–
222. doi: 10.1080/17405620801969585
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In
P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of
action (pp. 287–312). New York, NY: Guilford.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong
effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–
503. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.54.7.493
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandsttter, V. (1997). Implementation
intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 186–199. doi: 10.1037//0022-
3514.73.1.186
Haghbin, M., McCaffrey, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2012). The
complexity of the relation between fear of failure and procras-
tination. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior
Therapy, 30, 249–263. doi: 10.1007/s10942-012-0153-9
Harackiewicz, J., Manderlink, G., & Sansone, C. (1984).
Rewarding pinball wizardry: Effects of evaluation and cue
value on intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 287–300. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.47.2.287
Haycock, L. A., McCarthy, P., & Skay, C. L. (1998). Procras-
tination in college students: The role of self-efficacy and
anxiety. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76, 317–
324. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1998.tb02548.x
Heckhausen, H. (1989). Motivation und Handeln [Motivation
and action]. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents
and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional
states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 101–120. doi:
10.1007/BF00992338
Heckhausen, J. (1999). Developmental regulation in adulthood:
Age-normative and sociostructural constraints as adaptive
challenges. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Helmke, A., & Schrader, F. W. (2000). Procrastination im
Studium: Erscheinungsformen und motivationale Bedingun-
gen [Procrastination at college: Manifestations and motiva-
tional conditions]. In U. Schiefele & K. P. Wild (Eds.),
Interesse und Lernmotivation: Untersuchungen zur Entwick-
lung, Fçrderung und Wirkung (pp. 207–225). Mnster,
Germany: Waxmann.
Hennecke, M., & Freund, A. M. (2010). Staying on and getting
back on the wagon: Age-related improvement in self-
regulation during a low-calorie diet. Psychology and Aging,
25, 876–885. doi: 10.1037/a0019935
Howell, A. J., & Buro, K. (2009). Implicit beliefs, achievement
goals, and procrastination: A mediational analysis. Learning
and Individual Differences, 19, 151–154. doi: 10.1016/
j.lindif.2008.08.006
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Asso-
ciations with achievement goal orientation and learning
strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 167–
178. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.017
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Aca-
demic procrastination of undergraduates: Low self-efficacy
to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 915–931. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001
Klingsieck, K. B. (2013). Procrastination: When good things
don’t come to those who wait. European Psychologist, 18,
24–34. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000138
Koole, S., & Van’t Spijker, M. (2000). Overcoming the planning
fallacy through willpower: Effects of implementation inten-
tions on actual and predicted task-completion times. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 873–888. doi: 10.1002/1099-
0992(200011/12)30:6<873::AID-EJSP22>3.0.CO;2-U
Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Goals as knowledge structures. In
P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of
action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp.
599–618). New York, NY: Guilford.
Latham, G. P., & Seijts, G. H. (1999). The effects of proximal and
distal goals on performance on a moderately complex task.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 421–429. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199907)20:4<421::AID-JOB896>
3.0.CO;2-#
Lay, C. H., Edwards, J. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Endler, N. S.
(1989). An assessment of appraisal, anxiety, coping, and
procrastination during an examination period. European
Journal of Personality, 3, 195–208. doi:10.1002/
per.2410030305
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., McCrea, S. M., & Sherman, S. J.
(2007). The effect of construal on the temporal distance of
activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, 43, 143–149. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.009
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically
useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year
odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. doi:
10.1037//0003-066X.57.9.705
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1989). Toward a motivational and
structural theory of ruminative thought. In J. S. Uleman &
J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thoughts: The limits of
awareness, intention, and control (pp. 306–326). New York,
NY: Guilford.
McCown, W., & Johnson, J. (1991). Personality and chronic
procrastination by university students during an academic
examination period. Personality and Individual Differences,
12, 413–415. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90058-J
McCrea, S. M., Liberman, N., Trope, T., & Sherman, S. J. (2008).
Construal level and procrastination. Psychological Science,
19, 1308–1314. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02240.x
Milgram, N., Mey-Tal, G., & Levison, Y. (1998). Procrastina-
tion, generalized or specific, in college students and their
parents. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 297–
316. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00044-0
Milgram, N., & Toubiana, Y. (1999). Academic anxiety,
academic procrastination, and parental involvement in
K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination 11
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013
students and their parents. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69, 345–361. doi: 10.1348/000709999157761
Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower in a cognitive-
affective processing system: The dynamics of delay of
gratification. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory and appli-
cations (pp. 99–129). New York, NY: Guilford.
Moon, S. M., & Illingworth, A. J. (2005). Exploring the
dynamic nature of procrastination: A latent growth curve
analysis of academic procrastination. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 38, 297–309. doi: 10.1016/
j.paid.2004.04.009
Pham, L. B., & Taylor, S. E. (1999). From thought to action:
Effects of process- versus outcome-based mental simula-
tions on performance. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 25, 250–260. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025002010
Pychyl, T. A. (2011, July). Agency, responsibility and auton-
omy: An existential perspective on procrastination as self-
regulation failure Paper presented at the 7th Biennial
Conference on Procrastination, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000).
Five days of emotion: An experience sampling study of
undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 15, 239–254.
Raymore, L. A., Barber, B. L., Eccles, J. S., & Godbey, G. C.
(1999). Leisure behavior pattern stability during the transi-
tion form adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 28, 79–103. doi: 10.1023/
A:1021624609006
Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986).
Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between
high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 33, 387–394. doi: 10.1037//0022-0167.33.4.387
Sansone, C., & Thoman, D. B. (2005). Interest as the missing
motivator in self-regulation. European Psychologist, 10,
175–186. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.10.3.175
Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. (1999). Eine Prozessstudie selbstreg-
ulierten Lernverhaltens im Kontext aktueller affektiver und
motivationaler Faktoren [A process study of self-regulated
learning in the context of current affective and motivational
factors]. Zeitschrift fr Entwicklungspsychologie und Pda-
gogische Psychologie, 31, 157–170. doi: 10.1026//0049-
8637.31.4.157
Schouwenburg, H. C. (1992). Procrastinators and fear of failure:
An exploration of reasons for procrastination. European
Journal of Personality, 6, 225–236. doi: 10.1002/
per.2410060305
Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination: Theo-
retical notions, measurement, and research. In J. R. Ferrari,
J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.), Procrastination
and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment (pp.
71–96). New York, NY: Plenum.
Schouwenburg, H. C., & Groenewoud, J. T. (2001). Study
motivation under social temptation: Effects of trait procras-
tination. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 229–
240. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00034-9
Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things
we do: A grounded theory of procrastination. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 12–25. doi: 10.1037/0022-
0663.99.1.12
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress
feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 337–354. doi:
10.1006/ceps.1993.1024
Schwarzer, R. (1996). Thought control of action: Interfering
self-doubts. In L. Sarason, G. Pierce, & B. Sarason (Eds.),
Cognitive interference (pp. 99–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwarzer, R. (1999). Self-regulatory processes in the adoption
and maintenance of health behaviors. Journal of Health
Psychology, 4, 115–127. doi: 10.1177/1359105399004
00208
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-
efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston
(Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio.
Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK:
NFER-Nelson.
Schwarzer, R., Mller, J., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Assessment
of perceived general self-efficacy on the internet: Data
collection in cyberspace. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12,
145–161. doi: 10.1080/10615809908248327
Senecal, C., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Self-
regulation and academic procrastination. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 135, 607–619.
Senecal, C., Lavoie, K., & Koestner, R. (1997). Trait and
situational factors in procrastination: An interactional
model. Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 889–903.
Sirois, F. M. (2004). Procrastination and counterfactual think-
ing: Avoiding what might have been. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 43, 269–286. doi: 10.1348/
0144666041501660
Sirois, F. M., Melia-Gordon, M. L., & Pychyl, T. A. (2003).
‘‘I’ll look after my health, later’’: An investigation of
procrastination and health. Personality and Individual
Differences, 35, 1167–1184. doi: 10.1016/S0191-
8869(02)00326-4
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procras-
tination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509. doi:
10.1037//0022-0167.31.4.503
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic
and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory
failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94. doi: 10.1037/
0033-2909.133.1.65
Steel, P., Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2001). Procrastination
and personality, performance, and mood. Personality and
Individual Differences, 30, 95–106. doi: 10.1016/S0191-
8869(00)00013-1
Steel, P., & Kçnig, C. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation.
Academy of Management Review, 31, 889–913. doi:
10.5465/AMR.2006.22527462
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of
procrastination, performance, stress, and health. The costs
and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8, 454–
458. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x
Tice, D. M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good:
The place of emotion regulation in the context of general
self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 149–159. doi:
10.1207/S15327965PLI1103_03
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal.
Psychological Review, 110, 403–421. doi: 10.1037/0033-
295X.110.3.403
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of
psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–
463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963
van Eerde, W. (2000). Procrastination: Self-regulation in
initiating aversive goals. Applied Psychology: An Interna-
tional Review, 49, 372–389. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00021
van Eerde, W. (2003). Procrastination in academic settings and
the Big Five model of personality: A meta-analysis. In H. C.
Schouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, & J. R. Ferrari
(Eds.), Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings
(pp. 29–40). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people
think they are doing? Action identification and human
12 K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
European Psychologist 2013 Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing
behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15. doi: 10.1037//
0033-295X.94.1.3
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., &
Lens, W. (2009). Motivational profiles from a self-determi-
nation perspective: The quality of motivation matters.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 671–688. doi:
10.1037/a0015083
Walter, S. (2009). Zielfokusvernderung in der aktionalen
Handlungsphase beim Schreiben einer schriftlichen Arbeit
[Change in goal focus during the actional phase while
writing a term paper]. (Unpublished master’s thesis),
University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Wild, K. P. (2000). Lernstrategien im Studium: Strukturen und
Bedingungen [Study strategies in college students: Struc-
tures and conditions]. Mnster, Germany: Waxmann.
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a
self-regulated learning perspective. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 179–187. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.95.1.179
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory:
Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict
students’motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 96, 236–250. doi: 10.1037/
0022-0663.96.2.236
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental
phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to
outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29–
36. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.89.1.29
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing
revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-
regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
241–250. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.91.2.241
Received June 14, 2012
Accepted March 22, 2013
Published online August 6, 2013
About the authors
Kathrin Krause is a PhD student in the
Department of Psychology of the Uni-
versity of Zurich, Switzerland. Her re-
search interests include motivational
aspects of learning and training, self-reg-
ulation changes across the life span, and
life-long learning. She is a fellow of the
International Max Planck Research
School ‘‘LIFE’’ and has received funding
from the Bisch Foundation and the Swiss
National Science Foundation (SNSF).
Alexandra M. Freund is Professor of
Psychology in the Department of Psy-
chology of the University of Zurich,
Switzerland. She is the Zurich speaker of
the International Max Planck Research
School ‘‘The Life Course: Evolutionary
and Ontogenetic Dynamics (LIFE).’’ Her
main research area is the development of
motivation across the life span and the
role of motivation for successful devel-
opment. Her recent publications revolve
around the topics of the adaptiveness of
goal orientation toward gains or losses
depending on life-span changes in the
availability of resources and the role of
goal focus on means or ends (i.e., process
vs. outcome focus) for adaptive develop-
ment. Her current research projects are
funded by the Swiss National Science
Foundation (SNSF).
Kathrin Krause, Alexandra M. Freund
Department of Psychology
University of Zurich
Binzmuehlestrasse 14/11
8050 Zurich
Switzerland
Tel. +41 44 635-7206
Fax +41 44 635-7209
E-mail k.krause@psychologie.uzh.ch, freund@psychologie.uzh.ch
K. Krause & A. M. Freund: Goal Focus and Procrastination 13
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
Ó2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from European Psychologist
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
