English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Research over the past decades has shown that procrastination is an instance of self-regulation failure with deleterious consequences. Surprisingly, Chu and Choi (2005) have coined a construct called active procrastination emphasizing that procrastination can lead to positive outcomes despite the deferral of tasks on purpose until the last minute. The present study examined the construct validity of active procrastination. Using important antecedents (e.g., self-regulation, intention-action gap), correlates (e.g., self-efficacy beliefs, conscientiousness) and related outcomes of procrastination (e.g., stress, depression) as identified in the extant research literature, correlational results revealed that active procrastination has been mislabeled as a type of procrastination that is more appropriately construed as purposeful delay with adaptive qualities. The present study failed to replicate the nomological network of active procrastination demonstrated in previous research. Limitations associated with the active procrastination construct, empirical evidence and the corresponding inferences in developing the Active Procrastination Scale are discussed.

The Construct Validity of Active Procrastination: Is it Procrastination or Purposeful Delay?