Are You A Pre-crastinator?

Each of us, at times, can be a procrastinator, putting off something that is hard to do or that we don't want to do. But three researchers at Pennsylvania State University think we humans may also be precrastinators—hurrying to get something done so we can cross it off our mental to-do list, even if the [...]

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Each of us, at times, can be a procrastinator, putting off something that is hard to do or that we don’t want to do. But three researchers at Pennsylvania State University think we humans may also be precrastinators—hurrying to get something done so we can cross it off our mental to-do list, even if the rush ends up being wasteful. The researchers also claim to have coined the term “precrastination.”

Psychology professor David Rosenbaum and his two collaborators reached their conclusion after asking 257 students to complete a bucket challenge. Not the one in which you dump ice water on your head. Instead, they brought each student to a narrow alley in town. They placed two buckets in the alley—one on the left side and one on the right side—and told each individual to pick up one of the two buckets without stopping, in whatever way was easiest, and carry it to the other end. In most cases one bucket was closer to the end than the other bucket was.

Almost all of the students chose the bucket that was closer to them—meaning, farther from the end of the alley, requiring more physical work to complete the task.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Rosenbaum actually designed the experiment to investigate aspects of walking and reaching; he is an expert in human perception and motor control. But Rosenbaum found the results peculiar. When the researchers talked with participants afterward it became clear that the task involved two subgoals: approaching a bucket and picking it up, then carrying the bucket to the end of the alley. “It seemed like they wanted to get the first subgoal out of the way, so they chose the bucket closer to them,” says Cory Potts, the graduate student of the research group.

Rosenbaum interpreted the comments as a sign that the participants wanted to offload working memory—the function of the brain that keeps information and instructions at the ready for immediate thinking or action. He says our urge to relieve working memory can be so strong that we are willing to expend extra physical energy to achieve it.

The catch is that hastily finishing a task just to relieve working memory can be inefficient or even dangerous. For example, Rosenbaum says, hurrying to complete an assignment at work could cause you to make errors that you then have to spend extra time fixing. Carrying a large armload of grocery bags from the car just to get them all in the house could cause injury.

Or that might just be laziness—a perception that one big trip would be easier than two trips. Rosenbaum admits that his theory is still being formulated. For example, spending an hour answering emails at work, to ease the burden on working memory, might be the same as procrastination—focusing on email as a way to put off a more difficult project.

Indeed, psychologist and procrastination expert Timothy Pychyl at Carlton University thinks any tendency to precrastinate, if it exists at all, would be limited to trivial tasks. When faced with a choice of simple and more challenging tasks—like answering email instead of starting a project—people who choose email do so out of procrastination, not precrastination.

Rosenbaum says he needs further experiments to confirm his hypotheses. He and Potts would like to conduct a more complex bucket challenge. Participants would be told to choose a bucket and carry it to the other end of the alley, but before they took their first step, Rosenbaum would tell them that he also wanted them to memorize a list of 10 words and recite them at the far end of the alley. In this circumstance working memory would be taxed to a much greater degree, and the temptation to precrastinate should be stronger. Rosenbaum is not sure whether that would manifest itself, but he’d like to find out.

Photo courtesy of Jon Pallbo on Wikimedia Commons

Mark Fischetti was a senior editor at Scientific American for nearly 20 years and covered sustainability issues, including climate, environment, energy, and more. He assigned and edited feature articles and news by journalists and scientists and also wrote in those formats. He was founding managing editor of two spin-off magazines: Scientific American Mind and Scientific American Earth 3.0. His 2001 article “Drowning New Orleans” predicted the widespread disaster that a storm like Hurricane Katrina would impose on the city. Fischetti has written as a freelancer for the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Smithsonian and many other outlets. He co-authored the book Weaving the Web with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, which tells the real story of how the Web was created. He also co-authored The New Killer Diseases with microbiologist Elinor Levy. Fischetti has a physics degree and has twice served as Attaway Fellow in Civic Culture at Centenary College of Louisiana, which awarded him an honorary doctorate. In 2021 he received the American Geophysical Union’s Robert C. Cowen Award for Sustained Achievement in Science Journalism. He has appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN, the History Channel, NPR News and many radio stations.

More by Mark Fischetti

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe