Rozental et al. (2018): Psychological Treatments for Procrastination
Rozental and colleagues systematically reviewed randomised and controlled trials of psychological treatments for procrastination and pooled their results. Interventions reduced self-reported procrastination overall with a moderate effect size, and cognitive behavioural therapy showed the largest and most consistent benefits among the approaches with enough trials to judge. The paper is the best current evidence that procrastination responds to structured treatment rather than only to willpower.
| Citation | Rozental, A., Bennett, S., Forsström, D., Ebert, D. D., Shafran, R., Andersson, G., & Carlbring, P. (2018). Targeting procrastination using psychological treatments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1588. |
|---|---|
| Study type | Systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention trials |
| Key finding | Psychological treatments reduced procrastination with a moderate pooled effect; CBT showed the strongest evidence base |
| Scope | 12 studies with 21 comparisons met inclusion criteria, mostly student samples |
What the study found
The authors searched the trial literature for interventions targeting procrastination as an outcome and pooled the studies that met quality criteria. Across comparisons, treated participants ended up with meaningfully lower procrastination scores than controls, a moderate standardised effect. Cognitive behavioural approaches, which combine restructuring the thoughts around avoided tasks with graded behavioural steps, had the most trials and the clearest benefit. Other formats, including coaching and time-management training, showed promise but rested on thinner evidence.
Why it matters
Correlational research tells you what procrastination travels with; only intervention trials tell you what changes it. This meta-analysis moves the practical advice from plausible to tested: structured programmes that make tasks less aversive and starts more concrete genuinely shift behaviour. It also justifies treating chronic procrastination as something you address with a method, and in severe cases with professional support, rather than a character verdict.
Caveats
Twelve studies is a small evidence base by meta-analytic standards, samples were mostly university students, and outcomes were self-report questionnaires rather than observed behaviour, which invites expectancy effects. Follow-up periods were short in most trials, so durability of the gains is uncertain. The authors themselves call for larger trials with behavioural outcomes.
Peer-reviewed systematic review and meta-analysis in Frontiers in Psychology, led by the Karolinska Institutet group behind several procrastination treatment trials.
Related
Steel (2007) meta-analysisImplementation Intentions
Frequently asked questions
Can procrastination be treated?
Yes, in the sense that pooled trial data shows structured psychological interventions reduce procrastination scores with a moderate effect, with CBT best supported. That is a statistical average, not a guarantee for any individual, and severe, life-disrupting procrastination is worth discussing with a professional.
What kind of therapy works best for procrastination?
In this meta-analysis, cognitive behavioural therapy had the strongest and most consistent evidence. Its ingredients map closely onto self-help techniques: breaking tasks into graded steps, scheduling concrete starts, and challenging the catastrophic thoughts that make tasks aversive.