Science-Backed • Personalized • Proven

StopProcrastinatingStart Living

Find out which of the 6 research-backed procrastination types you are.

Get personalized strategies that actually work for your specific psychological patterns, not generic advice that assumes everyone's brain works the same way.

Discover Your Type Learn More

6 unique types

Research-backed

Personalized strategies

Why Generic Advice Doesn't Work

Most productivity advice assumes everyone's brain works the same way. Time-blocking, early starts, steady progress.

But research shows there are distinct procrastination types, each with different psychological drivers and optimal strategies.

What works for one type can actually make things worse for another.

Arousal Procrastinators

Scientific Foundation

Research Scope

•691 correlations analyzed in landmark meta-analysis

•20-25% of adults affected by chronic procrastination

•80-95% of college students report procrastinating behaviors

•Validated through multiple assessment scales including Pure Procrastination Scale

Key Predictors

•Low conscientiousness (Big Five personality trait)

•High impulsiveness (r ≈ .40 correlation)

•Task aversiveness and reward timing conflicts

•Low self-efficacy and achievement motivation

Ferrari's Trinity Model (1992)

Arousal, Avoidant, and Decisional procrastination types

Validation: Factor analysis studies, correlations with personality traits

Chu & Choi Framework (2005)

Active vs. Passive procrastination distinction

Evidence: Field studies, performance outcome measurements

Temporal Motivation Theory

Steel's equation-based approach to procrastination

Formula: Motivation = (Expectancy × Value) / (Impulsiveness × Delay)

Research Considerations

While typologies provide useful frameworks, some researchers question rigid categorization. Studies often rely on student samples, limiting generalizability. Cultural factors remain underexplored, and individual procrastination patterns may blend multiple types or change over time.

Empirically Validated Procrastination Types

Based on peer-reviewed research, these six distinct procrastination patterns emerge from factor analysis studies and behavioral assessments. Each represents unique psychological mechanisms and responds to different evidence-based interventions.

Factor Analysis Validated

Peer-Reviewed Research

Empirical Evidence

Type 1

Arousal Procrastinators

Individuals who delay tasks because they believe they perform better under pressure, or because they crave the adrenaline rush of last-minute work.

Key Traits

→Linked to sensation seeking and higher impulsivity
→Often overestimate ability to deliver quality under stress
→Associated with extraversion personality traits

Research:

Identified by Ferrari (1992) and validated through factor analysis studies. Correlates with impulsiveness (r ≈ .40).

Prevalence:

More common in men, often found in crisis-making behaviors

Evidence-Based Interventions:

Benefit from artificial deadlines and structured pressure points, but outcomes may compromise quality.

Type 2

Avoidant Procrastinators

Those who postpone tasks to avoid negative emotions such as fear of failure, fear of judgment, or even fear of success.

Key Traits

→Strongly tied to anxiety, perfectionism, and low self-esteem
→Procrastination functions as emotional coping mechanism
→Equate mistakes with personal failure

Research:

Core component of Ferrari's Trinity Model. More prevalent in women and perfectionism-linked delays.

Prevalence:

Common in academic settings, linked to maladaptive perfectionism

Evidence-Based Interventions:

Benefit from self-compassion training and cognitive reframing of failure perceptions.

Type 3

Decisional Procrastinators

Individuals who struggle with making choices and delay starting tasks because they cannot commit to a decision or worry about making the wrong choice.

Key Traits

→Connected with indecisiveness and low confidence
→Often overlaps with perfectionism tendencies
→Desire to choose the "perfect" path before acting

Research:

Third component of Ferrari's Trinity Model, though Steel (2010) questions empirical separation.

Prevalence:

Tied to low self-efficacy and choice paralysis behaviors

Evidence-Based Interventions:

Benefit from decision-making aids and structured choice frameworks with time limits.

Type 4

Active Procrastinators

Those who deliberately postpone tasks, believing that time pressure helps them focus and perform better, often achieving outcomes comparable to non-procrastinators.

Key Traits

→High self-efficacy and effective time management under pressure
→Strategic use of time pressure for enhanced focus
→Positive attitudes toward procrastination behavior

Research:

Introduced by Chu & Choi (2005). Field studies confirm better performance outcomes vs. passive types.

Prevalence:

Distinguishes "intentional delay" as potentially non-problematic behavior

Evidence-Based Interventions:

May be adaptive in high-pressure environments; focus on leveraging strengths while building safety nets.

Type 5

Passive Procrastinators

Traditional procrastinators who delay due to disorganization, lack of time management skills, or inability to act decisively, typically experiencing negative outcomes.

Key Traits

→Unintentional delays with feelings of being overwhelmed
→Low motivation and poor stress-coping mechanisms
→Associated with neuroticism personality traits

Research:

Contrasted with active procrastination by Chu & Choi (2005). Linked to dysfunction and poor performance.

Prevalence:

Traditional "bad" procrastination affecting 20-25% of adults chronically

Evidence-Based Interventions:

Benefit from cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and structured routine-building interventions.

Type 6

Emotion-Regulation Procrastinators

Individuals who delay tasks because the work triggers unpleasant emotions such as boredom, frustration, anxiety, or insecurity.

Key Traits

→Use procrastination as emotion regulation strategy
→Prioritize immediate mood improvement over long-term goals
→Task aversion linked to emotional state

Research:

Supported by modern cognitive psychology research on self-regulatory failure and mood management.

Prevalence:

Increasingly recognized in contemporary procrastination models

Evidence-Based Interventions:

Benefit from emotional regulation skills training and pairing difficult tasks with positive reinforcement.

Discover Your Type Now

Questions? We've Got Answers

How accurate is the assessment?

What makes this different?

Are the workbooks available now?

Is this scientifically valid?

Key Scientific References

Foundational Studies

Ferrari, J. R. (1992)

Psychometric validation of two procrastination inventories for adults

Established the Trinity Model of procrastination types through factor analysis

Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005)

Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of active procrastination

Distinguished active from passive procrastination patterns

Steel, P. (2007)

The nature of procrastination: Meta-analytic and theoretical review

Comprehensive meta-analysis of 691 correlations across procrastination research

Supporting Evidence

Díaz-Morales, J. F., et al. (2006)

Four-factor model of procrastination

Behavioral manifestation analysis through factor studies

Nauts, S., et al. (2019)

Bedtime procrastination: A behavioral perspective

Domain-specific procrastination patterns and self-regulation

Sirois, F. M. (2023)

Procrastination and stress: A conceptual review

Contemporary research on emotional regulation and procrastination

Assessment Methodology

Validated Scales

Pure Procrastination Scale, Irrational Procrastination Scale, and behavioral assessments

Statistical Analysis

Factor analysis, correlation studies, and meta-analytic reviews of empirical data

Peer Review

Published in academic journals with rigorous peer-review processes

Research-Based Assessment

Be among the first to discover your procrastination type and get personalized strategies

Take the Assessment View Evidence-Based Workbooks