Observation Video Program 4Observ.docx

Observation Video Program 4
Observation Video Program
Student NameCourse/Number
` Due Date
Faculty Name
Statement and Focus of Observation
I approached this exercise as a student of psychology with the
purpose of learning to focus my observational skills upon a
specific and particular aspect of how people present themselves
in this type of situation. Making the decision to seek
professional help is not an easy choice for most, as the stigma
attached to the perception of having a psychological issue of
any sort permeates throughout the fibers of most modernized
societies. Non-verbal communication is a specific subject that
fascinates me as a future psychologist because latent
communication reveals more of the unconscious meanings,
feelings and desires individuals may not express verbally
(Hertenstein, et al., 2006). The very first thought that crossed
my mind when the couple came into view in the video piece

(Laureate Education, Producer, 2012b) was the body language
of both male and female participants. To my mind, being able to
cue in and observe someone’s body language as they speak
provides more useful communication than inflection, tone or use
of words while talking. The couple appearing in the video well
dressed, she has her nails and hair beautifully done, wearing
heals to match her dark clothing, whilst he is wearing a dress
shirt, tie and trousers, also appearing professional. She is more
talkative, expressing her desire to keep her own name, whereas
he voices his traditional opinion that a woman should take her
husband’s name in marriage in order to ‘prove’ her full
commitment to him.
By observing the couple’s haptics, oculescics, postures,
gestures and facial expressions during the session with the
therapist, my attention was drawn to how closed up and
defensive the male appears. He barely looks at the female while
she expresses her opinions about the rift over his rather
traditionalist views of marriage freely, while he chooses to
interject only when prompted by the therapist or his girlfriend.
What strikes me most is how far apart they sit, not touching
each other, very little eye contact; he clasps his hands in his
lap, as she gesticulates more frequently to convey her emotions
as both question their commitment to each other, albeit for
different reasons. As he begins to question her commitment on a
broader basis, his countenance conveys resentment as she
becomes more defensive and argumentative by using diction to
clarify and cement her position on why a woman’s commitment
to a man should be balanced and equal in expectation.
Additionally, she is more animated in her responses, defending
her position more vigorously. Questions from the therapist
directed at the man prompt the female to enunciate, evaluate
and question her readiness to enter a marriage with this man
because for fear of loosing her identity. Since they made the
choice to seek professional help, follow-up sessions are
recommended to crystallize the issues this couple faces. The
question remains as to whether or not they will be able to

reconcile or compromise within context of finding common
ground in lieu of persisting tensions due to philosophical and
practical differences concerning the willingness of making a
lifelong commitment to each other on terms they both agree
upon. Honestly, I do not believe she is willing to submit to the
heteronormative, socially accepted constraints he attempts to
impose on her, even though she does want a ‘traditional’ family
someday, he may not be the proper candidate for her to commit
to.
Open versus Directed Observation
Patton (2015, pp. 330-334) contends the value of direct
observation includes being able and competent when taking
field notes, as well as knowing how to separate the trivial from
what actually matters. Insofar, direct observation leads the
researcher to pay actual attention to the happenings and by
utilizing inductive rationalizations, he or she is therefore able to
validate observations. In other words, being able to observe a
social situation, individuals or groups interacting, or evaluating
a program in its natural setting takes professional skills
acquired through practice and teachings. Qualitative researchers
do not manipulate the independent variables to suit a research
purpose because the observation takes place in the field, under
natural conditions. Furthermore, since the tenets of qualitative
studies serve to describe behaviors, rather than explaining it,
directed observation cues the researcher (or student) to be
specific about a particular peculiarity to be observed and
reported upon, whereas in an open observation, the researcher
(or student) is left to approach the observation from a broad
perspective without narrowing the focus or premise to specifics
as of yet (Zechmeister, Shaughnessy & Zechmeister, 2009, pp.
113-116). When comparing this directed to last week’s open
observation, it becomes evident that only experience, practice
and honing one’s skills as an observational researcher
eventually lead to becoming a professional. The adage, ‘the
devil is in the details’ may not serve a broad (open) observation
well as it might mask the specifics that matter and could prove

useful in drawing inductive reasoning and conclusions, whereas
the directed approach, in contrast, negates the need to identify a
specific purpose for the observation.
References
Hertenstein, M. J., Keltner, D., App, B., Bulleit, B. A.,
Jaskolka, A. R. (2006). Emotion 6 (3): 528–533. doi:
10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.528
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer).
(2012b). Couples counseling observation video. Baltimore:
Author.
Zechmeister, J. J. ,Shaughnessy, E. B., Zechmeister, J. S.
(2009). Research methods in psychology (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation
methods. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publicatio
How Being Busy Can Increase Motivation and Reduce Task
Completion Time
Keith Wilcox
Columbia University
Juliano Laran
University of Miami
Andrew T. Stephen
University of Pittsburgh
Peter P. Zubcsek
University of Florida
This research tests the hypothesis that being busy increases

motivation and reduces the time it takes to
complete tasks for which people miss a deadline. This effect
occurs because busy people tend to perceive
that they are using their time effectively, which mitigates the
sense of failure people have when they miss
a task deadline. Studies 1 and 2 show that when people are
busy, they are more motivated to complete
a task after missing a deadline than those who are not busy, and
that the perception that one is using time
effectively mediates this effect. Studies 3 and 4 show that this
process makes busy people more likely
to complete real tasks than people who are not busy. Study 5
uses data from over half a million tasks
submitted by thousands of users of a task management software
application to show that busy people take
less time to complete a task after they miss a deadline for
completing it. The findings delineate the
conditions under which being busy can mitigate the negative
effects of missing a deadline and reduce the
time it takes to complete tasks.
Keywords: productivity, motivation, busyness, time
management
Modern society places an incredible value on being productive
(Rifkin, 1987). By successfully completing the tasks they set to
accomplish, people are able to demonstrate their competence to
themselves and others (Elliot & Church, 1997; Nicholls, 1984).
In
this regard, reducing the time it takes to complete tasks is a key
factor to increase productivity. Productive people use their time
in
an effective manner so they are able to complete more tasks
than
those who are less productive (Keinan & Kivetz, 2011). As the
number of tasks increases, however, people become busier,

which
may have negative consequences for productivity.
Busyness is a subjective state that results from individuals’
assessment of how engaged they are in activities (Gershuny,
2005). This engagement is determined by the number of tasks
they
have to perform and the amount of time they spend on these
tasks
(Gershuny, 2005; Schor, 1992). Thus, busy people are engaged
in
more tasks than people who are not busy. When people are
engaged in several tasks, it is difficult for them to complete a
focal
task as other tasks compete for their limited time and attention
(Dalton
& Spiller, 2012), which can undermine task commitment and
moti-
vation (Shah & Kruglanski, 2008). Thus, busy people often take
longer to complete tasks compared to people who are not busy
(Boice,
1989; Seki, 2008; Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson, 2007).
We contend that being busy may not always have a detrimental
effect on the amount of time it takes to complete a task. In
situations
in which people miss a task deadline, they may become
demotivated
to complete the task. This occurs because missing a deadline
repre-
sents the violation of a task standard, which has a negative
impact on
motivation (Cochran & Tesser, 1996). When people are busy,
how-
ever, they are more engaged in activities, which may lead them

to feel
that they are using their time effectively. This perception of
using time
effectively may mitigate the negative impact of missing a
deadline on
motivation and the time it takes to complete a task. In summary,
this
research proposes that when people are not busy at the time they
miss
a deadline, they will be less motivated to complete the task.
However,
when people are busy at the time they miss a deadline, they feel
that
they are using their time effectively, and remain motivated to
com-
plete the task. Consequently, people who are busy take less time
to
complete the task with a missed deadline compared to those who
are
not busy.
Missed Deadlines Decrease Motivation
to Complete a Task
When people engage in a focal task, they often self-impose a
deadline for completing it (Ariely & Wertenbroch, 2002; Colby
&
Chapman, 2013). Setting deadlines helps people manage their
time
Keith Wilcox, Department of Marketing, Columbia University;
Juliano
Laran, Department of Marketing, University of Miami; Andrew
T. Ste-
phen, Department of Marketing, University of Pittsburgh; Peter
P. Zubc-

sek, Department of Marketing, University of Florida.
Andrew T. Stephen is now at the University of Oxford.
The authors thank Ilan Abehassera and Stephane Krzywoglowy
for
providing data used for this research, as well as Cait Lamberton
and
members of the R.E.D. Lab at Columbia University for their
helpful
suggestions.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Keith
Wilcox, Department of Marketing, Columbia Business School,
Columbia Univer-
sity, 3022 Broadway, New York, NY 10027. E-mail:
[email protected]
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri

gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on

or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in

te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2016 American
Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 110, No. 3, 371–384 0022-3514/16/$12.00
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000045
371

mailto:[email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000045
effectively by reducing the time it takes to complete a task
(O’Donoghue & Rabin, 1999; Shu & Gneezy, 2010; Soman &
Cheema, 2004). In fact, simply predicting that a task will be
completed sooner can reduce the time it takes to finish the task
(Buehler, Peetz, & Griffin, 2010). Thus, task deadlines serve as
standards for determining whether people are managing their
time
effectively.
Just as completing a task on time is associated with effective
time management, missing a deadline signals that one has failed
to
manage time effectively. This failure should have negative
conse-
quences for an individual’s subsequent motivation to complete a
task. This should occur because an individual’s motivation is
partially based on beliefs about their ability to achieve a desired
outcome (Bandura, 1977). When people feel that they are unable
to
achieve a goal, their motivation to pursue the goal is reduced
(Bandura & Simon, 1977). When people fail at goal pursuit or
violate a standard in some way, it can lead to goal
disengagement
to overcome the negative feelings that result from failure
(Cochran
& Tesser, 1996; Soman & Cheema, 2004; Vohs, Park, &
Schmeichel, 2013). Thus, after an initial violation, people are
more
likely to take part in behaviors that undermine the goal
(Cochran
& Tesser, 1996; Curry, Marlatt, & Gordon, 1987; Hill, 2004;
Marlatt & Gordon, 1980; Scott, Nowlis, Mandel, & Morales,

2008). A common example is dieters’ tendency to consume
more
calories (i.e., disengage from their dieting goal) after
consuming a
fattening preload (e.g., a milkshake; Polivy, Heatherton, & Her-
man, 1988).
While missing a task deadline does not imply that one cannot
accomplish the task at some point in the future, missing a
deadline
is a violation of a preestablished standard for when the task
should
be completed. As such, missing a deadline can be perceived as a
failure to manage time effectively, and have a detrimental effect
on
an individual’s motivation to complete a task. Thus, the
findings
showing that setting deadlines reduces the time it takes to
complete
a task may not hold when people take longer than initially ex-
pected to complete the task (i.e., they miss the deadline), which
is
a common occurrence (Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994; Byram,
1997; Kruger & Evans, 2004). Consistent with this notion, re-
search has shown that people take longer to complete a task
when
they miss a deadline compared to those who did not set a
deadline
at all (Soman & Cheema, 2004). However, this research did not
account for how busy participants were when they missed the
deadline. Next, we offer a perspective on how being busy can
mitigate the negative effect of missing a deadline.
Busyness and Task Completion
Exhibiting a strong work ethic has long been considered a virtue

(Furnham, 1982; Merrens & Garrett, 1975; Weber, 1930). The
view of work as a moral obligation is so deeply ingrained that
when people retire they often feel the need to justify their
leisure
time by staying busy (Ekerdt, 1986). People display their
busyness
as a badge of honor (Gershuny, 2005), and to signal their social
standing to others (Bellezza, Keinan, & Paharia, 2015). People
who are highly educated and in high-status jobs have steadily
increased the amount of hours they spend working (Jacobs &
Gerson, 2004; Robinson & Godbey, 2005). Consequently, since
the latter part of the 20th century, there has been a gradual
increase
in self-reported busyness (Robinson & Godbey, 2010; Schulte,
2014).
This view of work as a virtue may be behind the high value
people attribute to constantly being engaged in activities.
People
often prefer action to inaction (Bar-Eli, Azar, Ritov, Keidar-
Levin,
& Schein, 2007), and feel better after engaging in tasks
requiring
activity (e.g., walking) compared to tasks involving inactivity
(e.g., waiting) (Hsee, Yang, & Wang, 2010). People place great
value on things that require effort (Aronson & Mills, 1959;
Fest-
inger, 1962; Norton, Mochon, & Ariely, 2012) and, while they
rate
their job as one of their least pleasurable activities, they also
rate
it as one of the most rewarding (White & Dolan, 2009).
Moreover,
people feel more productive when they are executing tasks com-
pared to planning tasks (Gino & Staats, 2015). As a

consequence,
when given the opportunity to practice a task (i.e., execute)
versus
reflect on how they will perform the task (i.e., plan), a large
majority choose practice over reflection, even though reflection
leads to greater task performance (Di Stefano, Gino, Pisano, &
Staats, 2015).
The greater value assigned to activity (vs. inactivity) has impli-
cations for people’s perceptions of how effectively they are
using
their time. When people are engaged in worthwhile activities
(i.e.,
are busy), they should perceive that they are using their time
more
effectively compared to when they are inactive (i.e., are not
busy).
This perception is fundamental to understanding how being busy
can increase motivation and reduce the time it takes to complete
a
task after missing a deadline for the task.
When people miss a deadline, they violate a standard
established
for the task. The extent to which a standard violation lowers
motivation depends on the perception of failure that results
from
the transgression (Cochran & Tesser, 1996; Wilcox, Block, &
Eisenstein, 2011). For instance, the number of calories in a
fatten-
ing preload is often not enough to exceed a dieter’s
preestablished
limit of calories for the day. Nevertheless, people who consume
a
fattening preload disengage from their dieting goal and
overcon-

sume because they feel that they have failed to adhere to their
diet.
Alternatively, in the presence of factors that reduce the sense of
failure, people may remain engaged in pursuing the goal. For
example, when people set a goal to avoid making errors in a
task,
the sense of failure from making an error is smaller when
people
set distant goals (20 errors over 10 trials) compared to proximal
goals (2 errors per trial). Consequently, people are more
motivated
to perform well when they set distant compared to proximal
goals
(Cochran & Tesser, 1996). These findings suggest that
motivation
after a goal standard violation may remain high when factors
diminish the sense of failure from violating the goal.
We propose that motivation to complete a task after a standard
violation need not be determined by goals specific to the current
task. When people miss a deadline for completing a task, they
may
remain motivated to complete the task even if the missed
deadline
clearly represents the violation of a preestablished standard.
Con-
trary to the research discussed above, we propose that this moti-
vation may come from being engaged in the pursuit of other
goals,
not related to the task for which a deadline has been missed.
Busier
people perceive that they are doing well with regards to a
different
goal— using their time effectively. The perception that one is
using
their time effectively should reduce the sense of failure,

especially
when it comes from missing a deadline, and lead them to remain
motivated to complete the task. Therefore, people who miss a
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic

an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu

bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e

pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di

ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
372 WILCOX, LARAN, STEPHEN, AND ZUBCSEK
deadline should complete the task in less time when they are
busy
compared to when they are not busy.
Our theory differs from previous research on busyness, goal
violations, and motivation to pursue a goal in important ways.
First, it shows that busyness does not always lead people to take
longer to complete a task. Being busy at the time of missing a
deadline can mitigate the sense of failure from missing the
dead-
line and reduce the time it takes to complete a task. Second, it
demonstrates that situational attributions (e.g., they were
respon-
sible vs. I was responsible) are not always the driver of
motivation
following a goal-standard violation. In situations involving time
management, such as when a deadline is missed, motivation is

also
determined by the perception that one is managing time effec-
tively, which is not a situational attribution. Third, it shows that
goals that are not related to the violated goal (i.e., an array of
other
tasks that are being pursued at the time the deadline is missed)
can
influence motivation. To our knowledge, this perspective has
not
been explored in previous research on goal violations.
Overview of Studies
In summary, we predict that when people miss a deadline for
completing a task, those who are busy at the time that they miss
the
deadline will be more motivated to complete the task and take
less
time to complete it compared to those who are not busy. We
tested
this prediction and its driving mechanism in five studies. In
Study
1, participants manipulated to feel busy were more motivated to
complete a task with a missed deadline compared to those who
were not manipulated, an effect mediated by the perception that
time was being used effectively. In Study 2, we replicated these
findings while also ruling out the possibility that busyness
served
as a situational attribution that mitigated the sense of failure
from
missing a deadline. In Study 3, we demonstrated that after
missing
a deadline, the maintenance of task motivation resulting from
being busy increases the likelihood of completing the task in the
near future, as per self-reports provided by research
participants. In

Study 4, we replicated these findings in a context where missing
a
deadline and the timing of task completion is directly observed.
Finally, in Study 5 we analyzed data from 586,808 tasks
submitted
by 28,806 users of a task management software application that
is
designed to help people manage their tasks. We found that once
people miss an initial task deadline, busy people complete tasks
sooner than those who are not busy.
Study 1
The objective of the first study was to demonstrate that missing
a task deadline reduces motivation to complete the task, but that
this effect is mitigated when people are busy at the time of
missing
the deadline. We manipulated the extent to which participants
perceived that they were busy prior to having them indicate
their
motivation to complete a task with or without a missed
deadline.
We expected participants who perceived that they were busy to
display greater motivation to complete the task with a missed
deadline compared to those who did not perceive that they were
busy. We also expected participants who did not perceive that
they
were busy to display reduced motivation to complete the task
with
a missed deadline compared to one without a missed deadline.
Additionally, we expected the effect of busyness on motivation
for
the missed deadline task to be mediated by the perception that
time
is being used effectively.

Method
Pretest. We conducted a pretest to assess whether our busy-
ness manipulation would be successful at making participants
perceive that they are using their time effectively. Sixty-one
par-
ticipants from Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk) participated in
the pretest for a small monetary payment. In this first study, we
manipulated a general perception of busyness, without
associating
this busyness with specific tasks. This allowed us to examine
the
impact of busyness on the perception of effective time manage-
ment, while eliminating the possibility that participants were
using
the presence of other tasks as a situational attribution for
missing
the task deadline. Participants were first asked to think about all
of the tasks they had to do recently and to indicate how busy
they
were on a two-item scale. To manipulate perceived busyness,
participants responded to these items on biased scales using a
method for manipulating subjective self-perceptions adopted
from
previous research (Clarkson, Janiszewski, & Cinelli, 2013; Tor-
mala & DeSensi, 2008). In the not-busy condition, the scale
measuring “How busy have you been?” was shifted so that the
highest value corresponded to moderately busy (1 � not busy at
all
and 7 � somewhat busy). Similarly, the scale measuring “How
many tasks do you have to accomplish?” was altered so that the
highest value corresponded to having a moderate amount of
things
to do (1 � very few tasks and 7 � some tasks). In the busy
condition, the scales were shifted so that the lowest value of

each
scale corresponded to moderately busy (1 � somewhat busy and
7 � extremely busy) and having a moderate amount of tasks to
do
(1 � some tasks and 7 � very many tasks). We then measured
effective time usage using a two-item measure: “To what extent
do
you feel that you are using time effectively?” (1 � not at all and
7 � very much), “To what extent do you feel that you are using
time efficiently?” (1 � not at all and 7 � very much), r � .86.
An
analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that participants felt
they
were using their time more effectively in the busy condition (M
�
5.38; SE � .24) compared to the not-busy condition (M � 4.23;
SE � .28), F(1, 59) � 9.43, p � .01. Thus, the results indicate
that
the perception of being busy, as instantiated by our busyness
manipulation, does affect people’s perception that they are
using
their time effectively.
Participants. Two hundred fifty-eight participants from
MTurk participated in the main study for a small monetary pay-
ment. Fifty-seven participants indicated that they did not have a
task such as the one they were asked to describe and were
excluded
from the analysis, resulting in a final sample of 201 participants
(46% female; MAge � 34; SD � 11).
Procedure. This study used a 2 (busyness: busy vs. not busy)
by 2 (task: missed deadline, no missed deadline) between-
subjects
design. Participants were instructed that the purpose of the
study

was to understand the different tasks that people perform on a
daily
basis. Participants in the missed deadline condition were
instructed
to think about a task that they had wanted to get accomplished
last
week, but did not get a chance to finish and intended to
accomplish
this week. They indicated whether there was such a task
(yes/no).
In all conditions, participants who indicated that they did not
have
a task that matched the description were not asked any
remaining
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te

d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on

e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd

ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er

an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
373BUSYNESS AND TASK COMPLETION
questions in the survey. The procedure for the no missed
deadline
condition was similar to the missed deadline condition.
However,
participants answered questions about a task they had not
wanted

to get accomplished last week and intended to accomplish this
week.
We then administered the same busyness manipulation de-
scribed in the pretest, except that we asked how busy
participants
were last week, instead of recently. We did this because we
wanted
to assess the effect of perceived busyness at the time of missing
the
deadline on motivation. Participants then responded to the same
measure of effective time usage as in the pretest, r � .95. After-
ward, participants were asked to describe the task. We asked
them
to describe this task after the busyness manipulation to avoid
the
possibility that describing the task would impact their
perception
of how effectively they were using their time. They then
indicated
their current motivation to complete the task this week on a
three-item 7-point motivation scale: “How likely are you to pro-
crastinate on this task?” (1 � not likely and 7 � very likely),
“How
interested are you in finishing this task?” (1 � not interested
and
7 � very interested) and “How motivated are you to finish this
task?” (1 � not motivated and 7 � very motivated), � � .70. As
a manipulation check for the missed deadline manipulation, par-
ticipants indicated the extent to which the task they wrote about
earlier in the session was one where they missed the deadline on
(1 � not at all and 7 � very much) before completing several
demographic questions.
Results and Discussion

Manipulation check. A test of the missed deadline manipu-
lation demonstrated a main effect of deadline, F(1, 197) � 7.52,
p � .01. Participants were more likely to write about a task with
a missed deadline in the missed deadline condition (M � 4.13;
SE � .21) compared to the no missed deadline condition (M �
3.32; SE � .21). The effects of busyness and the task by
busyness
interaction were insignificant (Fs � 1).
Effective time usage. An ANOVA revealed that the effect of
busyness was significant, F(1, 197) � 10.40, p � .01.
Participants
in the busy condition indicated that they were using their time
more effectively (M � 4.73; SE � .17) compared to the not-
busy
condition (M � 3.98; SE � .16). The effects of task, F(1, 197)
�
.01, p � .97, and the task by busyness interaction, F(1, 197) �
1.81, p � .18, were insignificant.
Task motivation. As depicted in Figure 1, there was a task by
busyness interaction, F(1, 197) � 7.99, p � .01. As predicted,
participants in the not-busy condition were less motivated to
complete the task in the missed deadline condition (M � 4.76;
SE � .20) compared to the no missed deadline condition (M �
5.37; SE � .18), F(1, 197) � 5.05, p � .03. Participants in the
busy condition were marginally more motivated to complete the
task in the missed deadline condition (M � 5.49; SE � .20) than
in the no missed deadline condition (M � 5.03; SE � .18), F(1,
197) � 3.04, p � .08. The directional reversal of the effect may
be
due to participants being more motivated to complete tasks they
are late on when they do not perceive missing a deadline as a
failure. As predicted, participants were more motivated to com-
plete the task with a missed deadline in the busy condition com-
pared to the not-busy condition, F(1, 197) � 7.34, p � .01.

There
was no significant difference in motivation to complete a task
without a missed deadline between the busy and not-busy condi-
tions, F(1, 197) � 1.64, p � .20.
We tested whether perceptions of effective time usage mediated
the effect of busyness on motivation in the missed deadline
versus
no missed deadline condition using moderated mediation. Thus,
we controlled for the effects of time usage effectiveness and the
interaction between time usage effectiveness and task on
motiva-
tion. After applying these controls, the effect of busyness on
task
motivation became nonsignificant in the missed deadline condi-
tion, B � .45, t(195) � 1.64, p � .10, which was expected given
the proposed role of perceptions of effective time usage.
Similarly,
the effect was nonsignificant in the no missed deadline
condition,
B � �.42, t(195) � �1.65, p � .10. We then analyzed the
indirect
effects using conditional process modeling (5,000 samples;
Hayes,
2013). In the missed deadline condition, the indirect effect of
busyness on motivation was significant with a confidence
interval
that did not include zero, indirect effect � .28, 95% CI (.11,
56),
supporting mediation. In the no missed deadline condition, the
indirect effect of busyness on motivation was not significant
with
a confidence interval that included zero, indirect effect � .09,
95%
CI (�.01, 31), which does not support mediation.

These findings provide support for our theory. When people
miss a deadline for completing a task, they are more motivated
to
complete the task when they perceived they were busy at the
time
they missed the deadline. This effect is mediated by the
perception
that time is being used effectively when people are busy. In the
next study, we examine the process underlying these findings in
more detail while ruling out an alternative explanation.
Study 2
Individuals miss deadlines for a variety of reasons. Some are
personal, such as procrastination or simply forgetting about the
deadline. Others are situational, such as an unexpected event
that
forces people to delay the completion of a task. From a time
availability standpoint, one would expect busier people to miss
more deadlines due to situational factors. Busy people have less
free time so they are less capable of accommodating unexpected
events that arise in their daily lives. When people attribute the
cause of a transgression to situational factors, it reduces the
sense
of failure and they remain motivated to complete the task (Perry
&
Magnusson, 1989). This suggests that situational attributions
may
Figure 1. Effects of busyness and task on motivation (Study 1).
T
hi
s

do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol

og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.

T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us

e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed

br
oa
dl
y.
play a role in the maintenance of motivation for busy people in
the
presence of failure. However, our theory proposes that the
percep-
tion that one is using time effectively is also a driver of our
findings. Therefore, our objective was to provide additional evi-
dence for the mechanism we propose while demonstrating under
which circumstances situational attributions may play a role. To
accomplish this, we examined how busyness and the presence of
an unexpected event influence motivation when people miss a
task
deadline, while also exploring the role of effective time usage
and
situational attribution as mediators of this relationship.
To examine situational attributions, we measured four dimen-
sions of causal attributions for missing a deadline (McAuley,
Duncan, & Russell, 1992): locus of causality, personal control,
stability, and external control. Locus of causality refers to the
extent to which people attribute a cause to internal factors (vs.
external factors). Personal control refers to the extent to which
people attribute a cause to something that they can control (vs.
cannot control). Stability refers to the extent to which people
attribute a cause to stable factors (vs. unstable factors).
External

control refers to the extent to which the cause is something
under
other people’s control (vs. not under other people’s control). Of
these dimensions, we expected locus of causality and personal
control to be potential mediators between busyness and task mo-
tivation if situational attribution plays a role in the process. We
had
this expectation as the two dimensions capture the extent to
which
people attribute a cause of failure to situational factors that are
outside of their control (i.e., unexpected events).
Method
Participants. Two hundred two participants from Mturk par-
ticipated in the study for a small payment. Twenty-four partici-
pants indicated that they did not have a task such as the one
they
were asked to describe and were excluded from the analysis,
resulting in a final sample of 178 participants (48% female;
MAge � 35; SD � 12).
Procedure. Participants were instructed that the purpose of
the study was to understand the different tasks that people
perform
on a daily basis. All participants described a task for which they
had missed a deadline. Whereas the previous study was
conducted
at the beginning of the week, this study was conducted on a
Friday.
Thus, participants were instructed to think about a task that they
had wanted to get accomplished this week but did not get a
chance
to finish, and intended to accomplish next week. Participants
indicated whether there was such a task (yes/no). Participants
who

indicated that they did not have a task that matched the
description
were not asked any remaining questions in the survey.
All participants were then asked to describe the task and to
indicate their task motivation on a five-item motivation scale:
“How likely are you to procrastinate on this task?” (1 � not
likely
and 7 � very likely), “How interested are you in finishing this
task?” (1 � not interested and 7 � very interested), “How moti-
vated are you to finish this task?” (1 � not motivated and 7 �
very
motivated), “How important is the task to you?” (1 � not impor-
tant and 7 � very important), and “How valuable is the task to
you?” (1 � not valuable and 7 � very valuable), � � .82.
Afterward participants were administered two scales that were
presented in random order. One was the same two-item effective
time usage measure from Study 1, r � .88. Another one was a
7-point version of the Revised Causal Dimension Scale
(McAuley
et al., 1992), which measures four dimensions of causal
attribution:
Locus of causality, personal control, stability, and external
control,
all �s � .70.
Participants then completed a two-item measure asking them to
indicate how difficult (1 � not difficult at all and 7 � very
difficult) and hard (1 � not hard at all and 7 � very hard) it was
for them to complete the task when they had intended to, r �
.77.
We included this measure to examine whether busyness was
positively correlated with how difficult participants felt it was
to
meet the deadline on their focal task. While this was the case, r

�
.28, p � .001, busy people were still able to manage their time
effectively (see analysis below). We then measured how busy
participants felt they were during the week using a two-item
scale,
“How busy were you this week?” (1 � not busy at all and 7 �
very
busy) and “How many things did you have to do this week?” (1
�
very few things and 7 � a lot of things), r � .86. After
completing
these questions, participants were asked to indicate whether
some-
thing unexpected or unusual happened that prevented them from
getting the task done this week (yes/no).
Eighty-two participants (46%) indicated that they missed a
deadline due to an unexpected event. Busyness was positively
correlated with the presence of an unexpected event, r � .24,
indicating that busier people were more likely to miss a
deadline
due to an unexpected event than people who were less busy. We
regressed task motivation on busyness, unexpected event, and
their
interaction. The effects of unexpected event, B � 2.33, t(174) �
3.52, p � .001, and busyness on task motivation were
significant,
B � .33, t(174) � 4.54, p � .001. Thus, both unexpected events
(i.e., situational causes) and busyness increased task motivation
after missing a deadline.
The interaction between busyness and unexpected event was
also significant, B � �.35, t(174) � �3.02, p � .01. Busyness
had a significant effect on motivation when there was no unex-

pected event, B � .33, t(174) � 4.54, p � .001, but not when
there
was an unexpected event, B � �.03, t(174) � �.28, p � .78.
This
finding indicates that unexpected events are not the only reason
why busier people are more motivated to complete a task after
missing a deadline. Although busier people are more likely to
miss
a deadline because of an unexpected event, the effect of
busyness
on motivation primarily emerges in the absence of an
unexpected
event. We also examined the effect of an unexpected event at
different levels of busyness (i.e., plus vs. minus one standard
deviation from the mean). As demonstrated in Figure 2, an
unex-
pected event did not have a significant effect on task motivation
when people were busy, B � �.13, t(174) � �.48, p � .62, but
did have a significant effect when people were not busy, B �
1.05,
t(174) � 3.71, p � .001.
We examined whether effective time usage, and personal/locus
of control mediated the relationship between busyness and task
motivation. Because personal control and locus of control were
highly correlated, r � .65, we combined the measures to create
a
situational attribution index, such that higher numbers corre-
sponded to participants attributing the cause to situational
factors
that were outside of their control. We jointly tested whether
effective time usage and situational attribution mediated the
effect
T
hi

s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch

ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs

.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at

ed
br
oa
dl
y.
of busyness on task motivation. Busyness had a significant
effect
on effective time usage, B � .44, t(176) � 6.67, p � .001, and
situational attribution, B � .26, t(176) � 3.50, p � .001. Thus,
busier people not only perceived that they were using time more
efficiently, but also were more likely to attribute the cause of
the
missed deadline to a situational cause. After controlling for the
effects of the potential mediators and their interactions, the
effect
of busyness on task motivation was not significant, B � .10,
t(171) � 1.55, p � .12. We conducted indirect effect tests at
each
level of the event factor (5,000 samples; Hayes, 2013) to
examine
whether one or both of the potential mediators were responsible
for
the reduction in significance of the effect of busyness on task
motivation. When there was no unexpected event, the indirect
effect of busyness on motivation through effective time usage
was
significant with a confidence interval that did not include zero,
indirect effect � .11, 95% CI (.03, .21), while the indirect

effect
through situational attribution was insignificant, indirect effect
�
.02, 95% CI (�.01, .07). When there was an unexpected event,
the
indirect effect of busyness on motivation through effective time
usage was insignificant with a confidence interval that included
zero, indirect effect � .03, 95% CI (�.05, .16), as was the
indirect
effect through situational attribution, indirect effect � .01, 95%
CI
(�.01, .09). Thus, the findings indicate that effective time usage
mediates the effect of busyness on task motivation in the
absence
of an unexpected event, but not when there is an unexpected
event.
The results provide additional support for our theory that busy-
ness at the time of missing a deadline increases motivation as a
function of people’s perception that they are using time
effectively.
The findings also indicate that busier people are more likely to
miss deadlines because of situational causes (i.e., unexpected
events), which can increase motivation. While this suggests that
situational attributions may play some role in the process,
consis-
tent with our theory we find that the effect of busyness on task
motivation is strongest in the absence of an unexpected event
for
missing a deadline (i.e., a situational cause). Additionally, the
relationship between busyness and task motivation is mediated
by
the perception that one is using time effectively.
Study 3

The previous studies investigated our predictions by examining
the impact of missing a deadline and busyness on motivation. In
Study 3, we examine how being busy at the time of missing a
deadline affects whether people will complete a task in the near
future. We used a two-part longitudinal study design in which
participants reported on an actual task whose deadline they had
missed in the preceding week. In part 1, participants described
the
task with a missed deadline and indicated their current
motivation
to complete it. In part 2, 1 week later, participants indicated
whether or not they had actually completed the task during the
previous week. We predicted that people who were busy at the
time of missing the deadline would show greater motivation to
complete the task and therefore be more likely to complete the
task
during the week compared to people who were not busy.
Notably, our theory does not suggest that being busy will
always
reduce the time of task completion. When people are busy after
missing a deadline, being busy cannot be used retroactively to
infer
that one was using their time effectively when the deadline was
missed. Thus, being busy after missing a deadline should not
mitigate the sense of failure from missing the deadline.
However,
being busy after missing a deadline may lead people to delay
task
completion because being engaged in more activities makes it
more difficult to complete focal tasks (Dalton & Spiller, 2012).
While this was a reasonable expectation, we expected that being
busy when (i.e., just before) a deadline was missed would
increase
likelihood of completion independently of any effect of being

busy
after missing the deadline.
Method
Participants. We set a target sample size of approximately
250 participants who would complete both parts of the study.
Moreover, because data were to be collected at two separate
times,
we expected a high attrition rate between Parts 1 and 2. We also
expected that some participants recruited for Part 1 would not
have
a task that they had intended to complete the week before but
did
not complete (i.e., a missed deadline task). Consequently, we
sent
Part 1 of the survey to approximately 1,000 participants on
MTurk
and received 845 complete responses to Part 1 of the survey.
Several participants indicated that they did not have a task that
they intended to complete the week before but did not complete,
or
left blank one or more of our key measures in Part 1 (e.g.,
measures of busyness or task motivation). Of the participants
who
completed Part 1, we received 303 completed responses for Part
2
one week later. We then excluded 56 of these participants
because
they failed a data-consistency check by providing inconsistent
responses to one or more of the demographic questions asked in
both parts of the study (e.g., some participants indicated they
were
female in Part 1 and male in Part 2 or reported different ages in
Parts 1 and 2). Thus, our results are based on the 247 remaining
participants who provided complete and valid data for both

parts of
the study.
We acknowledge that a general concern with participant attri-
tion in longitudinal studies such as this is that the attrition
intro-
duces sampling bias. To check this, we compared the 247 partic-
ipants used in our analysis demographically to the participants
who
did not provide complete and valid data in Part 2. There were no
significant differences in distributions of age, sex, ethnicity,
house-
hold income, or language, all ps � .48. Thus, we are confident
that
participant attrition did not bias the sample.
Figure 2. Effect of busyness and unexpected event on
motivation
(Study 2).
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py

ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti

on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is

in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du

al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Procedure. Data were collected on two consecutive week-

ends. In Part 1, participants were asked to describe a task for
which
they had missed a deadline. The task was described as a task
they
had wanted to complete during the week that just ended, did not
finish, and intended to complete in the upcoming week. Before
describing this task, participants were given the option to skip
this
portion of the study by indicating that they did not have a task
that
they had intended to complete.
All participants were then asked to describe the task and to
indicate their task motivation on a four-item motivation scale:
“How likely are you to procrastinate on this task?” (1 � not
likely
and 7 � very likely), “How interested are you in finishing this
task?” (1 � not interested and 7 � very interested), “How moti-
vated are you to finish this task?” (1 � not motivated and 7 �
very
motivated), and “How important is the task to you?” (1 � not
important and 7 � very important), � � .76. Participants then
answered several filler questions about the task, including the
positive and negative emotions they felt from missing the
deadline,
how much of the task they completed, and how many minutes
they
expected it would take for them to complete the task. An
analysis
showed that controlling for these variables did not change the
findings of our subsequent analyses. Next, participants were
told to
copy and paste their task description into a document so that it
could be saved to their computer. How busy participants felt at
the
time of missing the deadline (i.e., during the previous week)

was
measured on the same two-item scale as Study 2, r � .81. After
answering questions about the missed deadline task, participants
were asked the same questions about a task that they had not
intended to complete in the preceding week, but did intend to
complete in the upcoming week. Thus, the second task was one
with the same completion time goal as the focal task, but for
which
no deadline had been missed. After describing the second task,
participants were instructed to save the descriptions of both
tasks
on their computer so that they could participate in a follow-up
study a week later (Part 2).
On the next weekend, participants were invited by e-mail to
complete Part 2 of the study. They were first asked to paste the
focal task description that they wrote and saved 1 week earlier
into
an essay box in the survey. Afterward, they indicated whether
they
had actually completed this task during the intervening week.
They
then indicated how busy they were the week after missing the
deadline on the same two items used in part 1 (r � .81). This
procedure was then repeated for the other task that they
described
in Part 1 for which they had not missed the deadline.
We expected that busyness during the week of Part 1 (i.e., when
they missed the deadline) would positively affect the
probability of
actually completing the task with the missed deadline in the
upcoming week (Part 2). We ran a logistic regression to see if
our

continuous measure of busyness at the time of missing the
initial
deadline positively affected the likelihood of completing the
task
in the following week. We also controlled for how busy partici-
pants were in the intervening week, after missing the deadline
(measured in the Part 2 survey). We found that busyness at the
time of missing the initial deadline (i.e., how busy people were
during the week before the Part 1 survey) had a positive effect
on
motivation to complete the task (measured in Part 1), B � .18,
t(245) � 3.37, p � .001. It also had a positive effect on the
likelihood of completing the task, B � .27, Z � 2.30, p � .02.
As
expected, busyness during the intervening week had a
significant
negative effect on the likelihood of completing the task, B �
�.24,
Z � 2.10, p � .04.
We tested whether task motivation mediated the likelihood of
completing the task. When motivation to complete the task was
added to the logistic regression, the effect of busyness at the
time
of missing the initial deadline was reduced in significance, B �
.24, Z � 1.85, p � .06. We then examined whether being busy
at
the time of missing the initial deadline indirectly affected the
likelihood of completing the task using logistic mediation
analysis
(5,000 samples; Hayes, 2013). The indirect effect of busyness at
the time of missing the initial deadline on the likelihood of
com-
pleting the task was positive with a confidence interval that did
not

include zero, indirect effect � .12, 95% CI (.04, .21). Thus,
being
busy at the time of missing a deadline makes it more likely that
a
person will later complete the focal missed deadline task
because
their motivation to complete that task is increased by being
busy.
We also examined how busyness in the prior week affected
motivation to complete the task they did not intend to complete
in
the week preceding Part 1 but did plan on completing in the
upcoming week (i.e., the second task). How busy participants
were
did not significantly affect motivation to complete the no
missed
deadline task, p � .19. Further, busyness measured in Part 1 did
not significantly affect likelihood of actually completing the
task,
p � .15.
Finally, we conducted an analysis in which we combined the
data for the two tasks and estimated a single logistic regression
model that allowed for the effect of busyness measured in Part 1
on
the likelihood of task completion to be moderated by the type of
task (i.e., missed deadline or not) as a within-subject factor. We
expected to find the effect of busyness measured in Part 1 on
task
completion to be significant only for the missed deadline task,
which was the case, B � .27, t(472) � 2.30, p � .02. For the no
missed deadline task, the simple effect was not significant, B �
.17, t(472) � 1.43, p � .16. We caution that strong inferences
cannot be made from this analysis because the order of asking
about these tasks was neither randomized nor counterbalanced.

We
adopted this procedure because we were primarily interested in
the
focal missed deadline task and therefore always asked about it
first. In any case, the results of this robustness analysis are con-
sistent with the above reported findings and thus provide addi-
tional support for our theory.
This longitudinal study shows that busy people are not only
more motivated to complete a task when they miss a deadline
for
completing it, as indicated by the intention measures in prior
studies, but are actually more likely to complete the task in the
near
future. The next study examines the influence of missing a
dead-
line and busyness on task completion using a procedure that
allowed us to actually observe when a deadline is missed and
when
the task was completed.
Study 4
A limitation of the previous study is that it relied on self-
reports
related to whether the task was completed or not. Thus, it is
possible that participants inaccurately reported on whether or
not
they completed the task during the week between the two parts
of
T
hi
s
do

cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og

ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T

hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e

of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br

oa
dl
y.
the study. In Study 4 we observe real behavior and demonstrate
that when people miss a deadline, busier people complete tasks
in
less time.
Method
Participants. One hundred thirty-nine undergraduates from a
large northeastern university were recruited for the study for a
small payment. Fifty participants did not complete the focal
task,
resulting in a final sample of 89 participants (54% female;
MAge �
22; SD � 4).
Procedure. The study was conducted over four sessions in a
3-week period. Three of the sessions were conducted on a
Wednes-
day and one session was conducted on a Thursday. Controlling
for
the session and day of the week does not change the findings so
these factors are not included in our final analysis. Participants
were initially recruited to participate in a series of unrelated
studies
that were administered in a behavioral lab. After their
participation

in the study, they were informed that researchers were
conducting
an optional study on reading comprehension that would require
them to read an excerpt from an academic journal article before
answering questions about the article. Their answers would be
submitted using an online survey and the survey link would
be active beginning at midnight the day that they participated in
the unrelated studies. They were instructed that they would be
paid
$5 for completing the study and that it was estimated that
reading
the article and answering the questions would take about 20
min.
Additionally, participants were instructed that they had up until
midnight 7 days after agreeing to participate in the study to
submit
their answers. However, they would receive a $1 bonus for com-
pleting the task by midnight 2 days later. After receiving these
instructions, participants were asked to indicate when they in-
tended to complete the survey purportedly for planning
purposes.
Their options were by midnight 2 days later or by midnight 7
days
later. All participants except one indicated that they intended to
complete the survey by midnight 2 days later. Thus, with the
exception of one person, everyone set a deadline of 2 days later
to
complete the survey. Of the 89 people who completed the
survey,
24 missed their deadline. The one person who indicated they
would complete the survey by the later deadline completed the
survey before the 2-day deadline.
Our dependent variable was the time it took to complete the
survey after missing the deadline, which was measured by the
day

in which the survey was submitted after the 2-day deadline. As
an
example, someone who submitted the survey at any point on
Saturday when the 2-day submission deadline was Friday
midnight
was recorded as a 1. The survey that participants completed
asked
them some basic questions about the article to ensure that they
had
read the article before measuring our independent variable. Our
independent variable was busyness, which was measured in one
of
two ways. Because busyness involves spending more time on
different activities (Gershuny, 2005), we created a measure that
captured how much time people were engaged in other activities
(time busyness). Specifically, participants indicated how many
hours they spent on each day, up until the day that they
submitted
the study, doing three types of tasks: a) being in class, b)
studying
or c) engaging in other commitments (e.g., work, meetings). We
created a measure of time busyness before the deadline by aver-
aging the time spent per day on these other tasks for the 2 days
before the deadline. We created a measure of time busyness
after
the deadline by averaging the time spent on these other tasks
per
day between the 2-day deadline and the day the task was
actually
completed. In addition, we measured participants subjective
per-
ception of how busy they were (subjective busyness) prior to
the
2-day deadline, using the same two-item scale as prior studies, r
�

.89. We also measured subjective busyness after the deadline
using
the same two items as in prior studies, r � .76.
Before analyzing the time it took to complete the survey, we
examined whether there were demographic differences between
those who completed the survey before the deadline and those
who
completed the survey after the deadline. Participants who
missed
the deadline were slightly but significantly older (M � 21.67)
than
those who did not miss the deadline (M � 20.17), F(1, 87) �
2.04,
p � .02. Participants who missed the deadline were also more
likely to be male (M � 46%) than those who did not miss the
deadline (23%), �2(1) � 4.23, p � .04. However, controlling
for
age or gender did not change our findings so we did not control
for
them in the subsequent analyses.
We assessed the effect of time busyness by regressing time to
completion on time busyness before the deadline and time busy-
ness after the deadline. As expected, time busyness before the
deadline had a negative effect on time to completion, B � �.47,
t(21) � �3.63, p � .01. This means that participants who were
busier (vs. less busy) at the time that they missed the deadline
took
less time to complete the task. A similar analysis using the sub-
jective busyness measure found consistent results, as subjective
busyness before the deadline had a negative effect on time to
completion, B � �.51, t(21) � �3.05, p � .01. The effect of
time

busyness after the deadline was significant, B � .28, t(21) �
3.19,
p � .01, while the effect of subjective busyness was not, B �
.10,
t(21) � .63, p � .54. Consistent with the results of Study 3, the
significant result on the time measure after the deadline
indicates
that being busy after missing a deadline is not part of the
hypoth-
esized process, as the effect of being busy at the time of
missing
the deadline was still significant.
The results of Study 4 support our theory using both time-
related and subjective measures of busyness, and observing real
behavior. People who were busier when missing a deadline took
less time to complete the task compared to those who were less
busy. Thus, while being busy can lead to longer task completion
times, this is not the case when a deadline is missed. Being busy
can in fact decrease task completion time as a function of the
effect
it has on perceptions of managing one’s time effectively.
Study 5
Study 5 is an attempt to find additional support for the effect of
busyness on the time is task to complete tasks. We used a
dataset
featuring tasks created and completed over a 538-day period in
2010 and 2011 by users of a popular task management software
application. People use this application to help keep themselves
organized in their personal and professional lives. The
application
is used on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets, by
visiting a website, or through integration with e-mail and
calendar

software. People use this application for a variety of reasons,
thus
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic

ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
the data covers a wide variation of tasks, both personal and
professional (e.g., buy groceries, pay bills, make doctor
appoint-
ment, finalize project report). When users create a task in this
application, they can set a date as a “deadline” for completing
the
task (this can also be later changed as many times as desired).
Users
also can mark a task as “complete” once they have finished it.
Similar to Studies 3 and 4, we examined how the extent to
which
a user is busy influences the time it takes to complete a task
after
missing a deadline. However, in those studies we only
considered
whether a task with a missed deadline was completed within
approximately 1 week (Study 3) or over a few days (Study 4) as

a
function of how busy people were at the time of missing the
initial
deadline. In this study, we were able to examine how busyness
influenced the time it took to complete a task over a longer
period
of time.
Data
Our dataset includes 586,808 tasks from 28,806 separate appli-
cation users over a 538-day data-collection window. All tasks in
our analysis were marked by users as “complete” at some point
during this period, and were tasks for which users set deadlines
(which ranged between 1 and 365 days from the date of task
creation; M � 8.89 days, SD � 23.48). We also had access to
tasks
that were never marked as “complete” during this period, but
excluded these because we were specifically interested in the
time
it took to complete a task. The dependent variable was time to
completion for a task, measured as the number of days from
when
a user created a task to when they marked it as “complete” in
the
application. Our analysis focused on how two key variables,
which
represented missed deadlines and busyness, affected this
outcome.
For missed deadlines, the nature of this dataset was such that
we
could not precisely know when a deadline was missed. Although
users set initial deadlines for completing tasks and can alter
these
deadlines as often as they like, the true deadline a user has in

mind
for a task may not be reported. It is also possible that a task’s
due
date changes so a user revises it even though they have not (yet)
missed the deadline for completing the task. To overcome these
challenges, inherent to using a large dataset, we measured the
number of times a user changed an initial task deadline and used
this as an indicator of the underlying probability that a given
task
is a “missed deadline” task. Our logic is that the more times a
deadline is changed, the more likely it is that the user failed to
complete the task by the deadline that they had in mind for that
task.
For busyness, we used the number of other incomplete tasks a
user had as an indicator of how busy they were at a given point
in
time, based on the logic that more incomplete tasks indicates
that
a person has more activities to do and thus should be busier
than
a person with fewer incomplete tasks. A key consideration was
the
time at which this measure was taken. Based on our theory and
the
previous studies, an ideal measure of busyness would be a
user’s
number of incomplete tasks at the time of missing a deadline.
However, as noted previously, the nature of our data makes it
impossible to know exactly when a deadline was missed. Thus,
it is difficult to pinpoint a day to take a measure of busyness if
it
were operationalized as the number of other incomplete tasks a
user had at the time of missing a deadline. Instead, we
considered
two reasonable alternative operationalizations for busyness.

First,
we measured busyness as the number of other incomplete tasks
a
user had at the time they created the task. This is reasonable
because the mean initial deadline was short (8.89 days after task
creation), meaning that the time between creating a task and
changing a deadline (if at all) was also short. This makes it
unlikely that users experienced dramatic fluctuations in their
levels
of busyness between the time they created a task and the time
they
might have missed a deadline. Second, we measured busyness as
the number of other incomplete tasks a user had 1 day prior the
first time they revised a task’s initial deadline if there was at
least
one deadline change. Or, if there were no deadline changes, we
used the number of other incomplete tasks a user had when the
task
was created. Both measures were tested and produced consistent
results, which was expected because these two
operationalizations
were highly correlated, r � .94, p � .001 (for brevity we report
results only for the first operationalization). Also, if we
dropped
the tasks that had no deadline changes, the correlation between
these measures still indicated high equivalence, r � .94, p �
.001.
Additionally, our dataset included a number of control variables
as they might have affected time to task completion, could have
been correlated with the two explanatory variables, and/or
allowed
us to control for individual differences affecting productivity
that
are unrelated to our theory. The following variables were used:

(a)
User completion time measured as the average number of days a
user took to complete tasks based on all tasks completed prior
to
the focal task was created (this controls for differences in users’
productivity tendencies); (b) User completion rate measured as
the
proportion of a user’s tasks created prior to the focal task that
had
been completed (this also controls for differences in users’ pro-
ductivity tendencies); (c) First task, which equals 1 if the focal
task
was the user’s first task created or �1 otherwise (this controls
for
the possibility that a user’s first task was special or different
from
other tasks); (d) First week of month, which equals 1 if the task
was
created in the first week of a month or �1 otherwise (this
controls
for the possibility that tasks created at the beginning of a month
may be treated differently to tasks created later in a month); (e)
Last week of month, which equals 1 if the task was created in
the
last week of a month, or �1 otherwise (this controls for the
possibility that tasks created at the end of a month may be
treated
differently to tasks created earlier in a month); (f) Day of week
task
was created, a set of indicators for the day of the week that the
task
was created (this controls for seasonality); and, finally, (g)
Month
of year task was created, a set of indicators for the month of the
year that the task was created (this also controls for
seasonality).

Our goal was to test the hypothesis that a task’s time to com-
pletion would be increased by deadline changes (as an indicator
of
the probability of missing a deadline), but less so for busy
people.
Since the dependent variable is a time duration variable and has
a
large range, we used a Cox regression (proportional hazard
model)
to test our predictions. This allowed us to model how the proba-
bility of task completion at any time is affected by deadline
changes, busyness, their interaction, and the control variables.
This
type of regression models the “hazard” of task completion,
which
is the probability that a task that has not yet been completed by
day
t will be completed on day t. We expected that while increasing
deadline changes would be associated with a decrease in the
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is

co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc

ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl

e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di

vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

probability of task completion (i.e., an increase in time to com-
pletion), this effect would be reduced as a person’s busyness
increased, resulting in a significant deadline changes by
busyness
interaction). Note that we also conducted a normal regression
and
found results consistent with those reported next.
Results are reported in Table 1. The table shows a base model
that estimates the effects of all control variables on the
probability
of task completion but excludes the variables of interest
(deadline
changes, busyness, and their interaction). The table also shows
a
full model that includes all control variables and the three
effects
of interest. Except for the binary control variables (first task,
first
week of month, last week of month, day of week, and month of
year), all variables were standardized (M � 0, SD � 1). The full
model fits better than the base model, and therefore we focus on
its
results. In the table we report the parameter estimate for each
effect
(B) as well as the hazard ratio (HR � exp[B]). The hazard ratio
is
an indicator of how a one-unit increase in a variable affects the
probability of task completion after controlling for the effects
of
the other variables. Put simply, HR greater than 1 (less than 1)
indicates that an increase in the corresponding variable is
associ-
ated with an increase (decrease) in the probability of task

comple-
tion, which means that time to task completion is decreased (in-
creased).
As expected, the effect of the number of deadline changes,
which indicates the likelihood of having missed a deadline, on
the
probability of task completion was negative and significant,
B � �.30, HR � .74, �2(1) � 25,541.59, p � .01. Thus,
changing
a task’s deadline increases the time it takes to complete a task.
To
put this in perspective, the mean number of deadline changes
for
a task was .53 (SD � 1.72), and adding one deadline change
reduced the probability of task completion by an average of
16%.
Importantly, this effect was moderated by busyness with a
signif-
icant positive interaction, B � .012, HR � 1.01, �2(1) �
117.49,
p � .001. The effect of busyness was also positive and
significant,
B � .011, HR � 1.01, �2(1) � 70.66, p � .001. With respect to
the interaction, the adverse effect of changing deadlines on task
completion is reduced. This can be illustrated by comparing the
mean time to completion for tasks with zero versus one or more
deadline changes for users who were not busy (busyness � 0) or
busy (busyness �0). For tasks created by users who were busy
(busyness �0), the mean time to completion was 12.24 days
when
they had no deadline changes versus 25.54 days when they had
at
least one deadline change (difference � 13.30 days). In
contrast,

for tasks created by nonbusy users (busyness � 0), mean times
to
completion were 19.44 days for tasks with no deadline changes,
and 37.63 days for tasks with one or more deadline changes
(difference � 18.19 days). A comparison of the differences
(13.30
days for busy people vs. 18.19 days for nonbusy people)
illustrates
the moderating effect of busyness. Although the simple effect of
deadline changes on probability of task completion is always
Table 1
Effects on Probability of Task Completion (Study 5)
Covariate
Base model Full model
B �2 HR B �2 HR
Deadline changes �.30 25,541.59 .74
Busyness .01 70.66 1.01
Deadline changes � Busyness .01 117.49 1.01
User completion time �.52 62,871.72 .60 �.54 67,766.31 .58
User completion rate .05 829.22 1.05 .04 449.92 1.04
First task �.02 37.46 .98 �.02 88.20 .98
First week of month �.01 19.10 .99 �.01 27.95 .99
Last week of month .00 7.95 1.00 .00 8.16 1.00
Day task created (baseline � Saturday)
Sunday �.01 5.90 .99 �.01ns 1.27 .99
Monday �.02 15.75 .98 �.01 4.15 .99
Tuesday �.03 39.61 .97 �.02 23.50 .98
Wednesday �.04 66.54 .96 �.04 47.33 .96
Thursday �.09 300.76 .91 �.09 260.74 .92
Friday �.01 4.43 .99 �.02 7.46 .98

Month task created (baseline � December)
January .02 9.43 1.02 .02 11.14 1.02
February .02 4.73 1.02 .02 8.40 1.02
March .01ns 2.10 1.01 .02 7.39 1.02
April �.01ns 2.66 .99 .00ns .18 1.00
May .02 6.18 1.02 .03 23.79 1.03
June .04 37.35 1.04 .06 72.47 1.06
July .06 67.94 1.06 .08 119.79 1.08
August .14 409.15 1.16 .15 461.32 1.17
September .25 1,121.15 1.29 .26 1,143.81 1.29
October .01ns .44 1.01 .02 4.36 1.02
November .00ns .24 1.00 .00ns .07 1.00
�2LL 14,359,721 14,320,079
AIC 14,359,765 14,320,129
BIC 14,360,013 14,320,411
Note. These models estimate the effects of the covariates on the
probability (hazard) of task completion. Unless
indicated by “ns” all parameters are significant at the p � .05
level. HR � hazard ratio.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is

vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

negative, it is less negative for busy people. Note that these
results
were unchanged when using the alternative operationalization
for
busyness (i.e., busyness just before the initial deadline was
changed). The results were also consistent when we controlled
for
multiple tasks per user with either user random effects or user
fixed effects, and if we restricted the analysis to the subset of
tasks
for which the deadline was changed at least once.
As another analysis, we used a variable that simply indicated if
a task was completed after its initial deadline (late) versus on or
before its deadline (not late). Although this measure is less
sensi-
tive than the deadline changes measure previously used, and not
ideal for the reasons we described earlier, we expected it to
generate consistent results. We estimated a similar Cox
regression
model as before, but with being late replacing the number of
deadline changes as an explanatory variable. Consistent with the
other analysis, the effect of a being late on probability of task
completion was negative and significant, B � �.48, HR � .62,
�2(1) � 117,504.98, p � .001, and the late � busyness
interaction
was significant, B � .02, HR � 1.02, �2(1) � 140.49, p � .001.
The effect of busyness was not significant, p � .30. When busy-
ness was measured at the time of the first deadline change, the
results were largely consistent, with the effect of being late sig-
nificantly negative, B � �.48, HR � .62, �2(1) � 117,626.40,
p � .001, and the late � busyness interaction significantly posi-
tive, B � .014, HR � 1.01, �2(1) � 99.00, p � .001. The effect
of busyness was also significant in this model, B � �.02, HR �

.98, �2(1) � 137.00, p � .001. Thus, using a different indicator
of
missed deadlines generally supports the previous studies’
findings.
This final study examined 586,808 real tasks submitted by users
of a popular task management “to do” list software application.
The findings are overall consistent with our theory that missing
a
task deadline can lead people to take longer to complete a task,
but
that being busy, which was operationalized in two different
ways,
mitigates this effect.
General Discussion
This research examined how being busy influences motivation
to complete a task, the time it takes to complete it, and the
likelihood that the task is actually completed. We conducted
this
investigation in contexts in which people missed or did not miss
a
deadline for completing the task. Counter to extant research
(e.g.,
Jacobs & Dodd, 2003), we found that having many tasks to
accomplish can aid task completion. When people miss a
deadline,
they are more motivated to complete a task when they are busy
compared to when they are not busy, an effect that is mediated
by busy people’s perception that they are managing time effi-
ciently (Studies 1 and 2). As a consequence of this motivation,
busy people become more likely to actually complete tasks than
people who are not busy (Studies 3 and 4). This effect on task
completion was demonstrated in naturalistic experiments, and
us-

ing over half a million task records from a task management
software application designed to help people manage their tasks
(Study 5).
Previous research has demonstrated that failure can have a
negative impact on motivation in several domains (Cochran &
Tesser, 1996; Herman & Mack, 1975; Marlatt & Gordon, 1980;
Vohs et al., 2013). The present research contributes to this
litera-
ture by demonstrating that, when failure is due to a missed
dead-
line, being busy can mitigate the sense of failure. Thus, while
being busy may make people more likely to fail to achieve a
specific goal (i.e., completing a task), it can also make people
more
likely to achieve the goal by augmenting the perception that a
different goal (i.e., using one’s time effectively) is being
achieved.
These findings have theoretical implications for the goal pursuit
and productivity literatures, and practical implications for how
to
help people become more effective at completing tasks.
Implications for Theory
How busy a person was when they violated a goal standard (i.e.,
missing a task deadline) was a key determinant of motivation in
our studies. Being busy (vs. not busy) means that a person has
more tasks that they are trying to achieve, which suggests that
they
may also have more active goals that are incomplete. Thus,
having
several active goals at the same time may be beneficial because
it
helps mitigate negative effects of violating any single goal. This

account seems counter to the findings that unfinished goals tend
to
escalate (Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Trotschel,
2001). In our studies, the positive effects of being busy seem to
have offset any negative effects associated with reminders of
having several unaccomplished goals. Further research is
needed
to explore when each effect of having unaccomplished goals
(i.e.,
busyness as fulfilling an effective time management goal vs.
busyness as having many goals that have not been successfully
accomplished) will determine motivation.
The fact that missing a deadline on one task goal can have an
influence on people’s perceptions of an alternative goal, in this
case using time effectively, suggests that this cross-goal effect
may
generalize to other goal relationships. Consider a faculty
member
who has not published a paper during the academic year and
received a poor research evaluation in their school’s yearly
review.
This could lead to demotivation to publish papers. However, if
this
person received a high service or teaching evaluation that year,
he
or she could perceive that the goal of “being a good academic”
was
still being met, and remain motivated to publish papers. While
this
could be true, it is not clear that all goal dyads work this way.
The
relationship between missing a deadline and busyness is that
both
refer to an individual’s ability to manage time effectively.
There-

fore, these cross-goal motivational effects may only occur in the
domain of time management. If this is correct, the perception
that
a different goal is being achieved would be motivating to the
pursuit of the other goal when they both refer to time
management
(a faculty member did not publish because the time was spent
on
important teaching and service activities) but not when they
refer
to other factors (a faculty member did not publish because he or
she could not say no to the chair’s teaching and service
requests).
Therefore, there seems to be something special about being busy
and engaged in activities that can increase motivation to achieve
an
array of other goals at which an individual failed.
Support for the predictions above may come from connecting
our findings to related streams of research, namely Goal
Systems
Theory (Kruglanski et al., 2002). This theory suggests that the
goal
system is a cognitive structure like many others, connected in a
hierarchy involving superordinate goals, goals, subgoals, and
means to goal achievement. If time efficiency is a superordinate
goal, then each task an individual wants to complete is a goal
connected to that superordinate goal. When there is a failure
T
hi
s
do
cu

m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic

al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi

s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of

th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa

dl
y.
associated with one goal, busyness signals that the
superordinate
goal is still being accomplished, and this motivates individuals
to
pursue the goal. These findings seem inconsistent with research
showing that a perception of progress toward a superordinate
goal
may decrease motivation to pursue the goal (Fishbach, Dhar, &
Zhang, 2006). This inconsistency can be resolved in two ways.
First, progress typically refers to being at the initial versus end
stages of goal pursuit. Here, we look at how apparent failures
can
maintain a perception of progress, which means the
motivational
system may respond differently, independently of the goal
pursuit
stage, when an apparent lack of progress signals that progress is
still being made toward the superordinate goal. Second,
progress
leads to decreased motivation when goals are complementary
(e.g.,
a person wears less sunscreen when wearing a hat), which is not
the case in the current research. The tasks that made our partici-
pants busy were not in general complementary of the missed
deadline task, meaning that the motivational system may
respond
differently when the goals representing progress are competing
with, rather than complementary to, the focal goal.

Our findings are consistent with research on causal attributions,
which demonstrates that people are more motivated to engage in
an activity after failure when they attribute the cause of the
failure
to situational factors, as opposed to internal factors such as
one’s
ability (Weiner, 1985, 1986). When people miss a task deadline
due to an unexpected event—a situational factor—they are more
motivated to complete the task compared to when there is no
salient situational cause for missing the deadline (i.e., no unex-
pected event). Although we do find that busyness primarily in-
creases task motivation in the absence of an unexpected event
for
missing a deadline, this does not necessarily mean that causal
attributions could not play a role in these circumstances. It is
possible that when busy people miss a deadline they attribute
the
cause to the other tasks they have to accomplish (i.e.,
situational
factors). This increased attention to the other tasks may lead
people
to realize that they are using their time effectively. Thus, the
process of attributing a cause for missing a deadline may result
in
the perception that one is using time effectively. Future
research is
necessary to better understand the relationship between
busyness,
causal attributions and the perception that time is being used
effectively.
Relatedly, our findings have implications for the self-efficacy
literature, which investigates how people’s belief in their
capabil-
ity of performing a behavior influences motivation (Bandura,

1977). While failures lower self-efficacy perceptions, being
busy
may augment these perceptions, or at least keep them from de-
creasing, by allowing people to attribute the cause of missing
the
deadline to factors other than their own ability. These findings
are
consistent with, and offer a qualification, to recent findings on
how
people have aversion to being idle, and use general activity to
feel
better about who they are (Hsee et al., 2010). Our findings
suggest
the importance of examining a general versus more specific
effect
of busyness on self-efficacy. While being busy seems to make
people more confident about who they are and what they can
achieve, its impact on these perceptions may be specific to
situa-
tions where busyness is relevant, such as the ones presented
here.
This does not refute the belief that our society places increased
emphasis on the idea that being busy is desirable, valuable, and
sometimes laudable. Rather, it calls for a deeper look at when
busyness is indeed desirable, or even adaptive. Future research
needs to investigate additional domains, and possible
boundaries,
of the influence of busyness on self-efficacy perceptions.
Our findings also have implications for the self-perception lit-
erature, which indicates that people use their own behavior to
form
perceptions of who they are, which increases the likelihood that
they will perform the same behavior (Bem, 1972). Here, not
performing a behavior (i.e., missing a deadline) increased the

likelihood of later performing the behavior. One way to
reconcile
our findings with those of self-perception theory is to argue that
busyness generated a perception that one is an “individual who
knows how to manage their time.” This perception, in turn,
moti-
vated behavior. Future research could add to the self-perception
literature by examining when the performance of behaviors in
unrelated domains influences self-perception specific to a focal
domain, motivating people to perform additional self-
perception-
consistent behaviors within that domain. These findings also
con-
tribute to what we know on dispositional traits versus
contextual
influences on productivity. The mere perception that one is
using
their time effectively can influence motivation and actual effi-
ciency at completing tasks. Previous research has
conceptualized
the motivation to engage in productive activity as a personality
trait (Keinan & Kivetz, 2011), which suggests that productivity
may be based on stable characteristics. The present research
dem-
onstrates that people’s efforts at being productive are also
deter-
mined by their subjective sense of using time effectively, which
can be influenced by context. This offers an additional account
of
why productive people are more effective with their time:
produc-
tive people may be better at managing failure. They may have a
more stable sense of their own effectiveness, which allows them
to
remain engaged in tasks once an inevitable deadline is missed.

Implications for Productivity
Our findings also have a number of implications for individuals’
productivity in both personal and professional contexts. A
simple
way for people to become more productive is to remind
themselves
of all the tasks they need to do. Thinking about all the tasks one
needs to do should make individuals aware that they are busy.
This
should make people feel that they are achieving the goal of
using
their time effectively. As a consequence, people should not
disen-
gage from tasks they have failed at because of poor time
manage-
ment. Instead, people should be motivated to complete the task,
and become more productive overall.
In a workplace setting, purposively keeping people busy may be
a simple and effective antidote to chronic procrastination and
task-completion tardiness. For example, managers may find that
their subordinates are more likely to be productive if they give
them more, not less, to do. There are likely, however, limits to
this.
We expect that extremely busy people will feel “overloaded”
and
“overwhelmed” by what they need to achieve, which could lead
them to disengage entirely from a task. Thus, the potential of
being
busy to help increase productivity should be balanced against
individuals’ feelings of being overloaded and their perceptions
of
what “being busy” means to them.
Rather than actually giving people more tasks, simply making

people feel busier could be effective in increasing productivity.
For
example, employers could break larger tasks down into smaller
subtasks and communicate those as a way of increasing an em-
ployee’s perceived busyness without actually giving them extra
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m

er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li

ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r

th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to

be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
work to do. Additionally, people could use a busyness-related
mechanism (e.g., list every single task they have been assigned
at
work) to overcome a reduction in motivation to complete a task.
Overall, individuals can benefit in both their personal and work
lives from being busy in the all-too-common context of missed
deadlines, as being busy helps them increase their productivity.
References
Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination,
deadlines, and
performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological
Science,
13, 219 –224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00441

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of
initiation on liking
for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59,
177–181.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0047195
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A., & Simon, K. M. (1977). The role of proximal
intentions in
self-regulation of refractory behavior. Cognitive Therapy and
Research,
1, 177–193.
Bar-Eli, M., Azar, O. H., Ritov, I., Keidar-Levin, Y., & Schein,
G. (2007).
Action bias among elite soccer goalkeepers: The case of penalty
kicks.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 606 – 621.
http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.joep.2006.12.001
Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., &
Trötschel,
R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and
pursuit of
behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81,
1014 –1027. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1014
Bellezza, S., Keinan, A., & Paharia, N. (2015). Conspicuous

consumption
of time: When busyness and lack of leisure time become a status
symbol.
Manuscript in preparation.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1– 62). New
York, NY:
Academic Press.
Boice, R. (1989). Procrastination, busyness and bingeing.
Behaviour Re-
search and Therapy, 27, 605– 611.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-
7967(89)90144-7
Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the
“planning
fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times.
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 366 –381.
.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366
Buehler, R., Peetz, J., & Griffin, D. (2010). Finishing on time:
When do
predictions influence completion times? Organizational
Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 111, 23–32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.obhdp.2009.08.001
Byram, S. J. (1997). Cognitive and motivational factors
influencing time
prediction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 216

–239.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.3.3.216
Clarkson, J. J., Janiszewski, C., & Cinelli, M. D. (2013). The
desire for
consumption knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 39,
1313–
1329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668535
Cochran, W., & Tesser, A. (1996). The “what the hell” effect:
Some effects
of goal proximity and goal framing on performance. In L. L.
Martin &
A. Tesser (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among
goals, affect,
and self-regulation (pp. 99 –120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colby, H., & Chapman, G. B. (2013). Savings, subgoals, and
reference
points. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 16 –24.
Curry, S., Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1987). Abstinence
violation
effect: Validation of an attributional construct with smoking
cessation.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 145–149.
http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.145
Dalton, A. N., & Spiller, S. A. (2012). Too much of a good
thing: The
benefits of implementation intentions depend on the number of
goals.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 600 – 614.

664500
Di Stefano, G., Gino, F., Pisano, G., & Staats, B. (2015).
Learning by
thinking: Overcoming the bias for action through reflection.
Manuscript
in preparation.
Ekerdt, D. J. (1986). The busy ethic: Moral continuity between
work and
retirement. The Gerontologist, 26, 239 –244.
geront/26.3.239
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of
approach
and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality
and
Social Psychology, 72, 218 –232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.72.1.218
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2).
Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Fishbach, A., Dhar, R., & Zhang, Y. (2006). Subgoals as
substitutes or
complements: The role of goal accessibility. Journal of
Personality and
Social Psychology, 91, 232–242.
.91.2.232
Furnham, A. (1982). The Protestant work ethic and attitudes
towards

unemployment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 277–
285.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1982.tb00101.x
Gershuny, J. (2005). Busyness as the badge of honor for the new
super-
ordinate working class. Social Research, 72, 287–314.
Gino, F., & Staats, B. (2015, April 24). The remedy for
unproductive
busyness. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2015/
04/the-remedy-for-unproductive-busyness
Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation,
and con-
ditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New
York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Herman, C. P., & Mack, D. (1975). Restrained and unrestrained
eating.
Journal of Personality, 43, 647– 660.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1975.tb00727.x
Hill, A. J. (2004). Does dieting make you fat? The British
Journal of
Nutrition, 92(Suppl 1), S15–S18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/
BJN20041135
Hsee, C. K., Yang, A. X., & Wang, L. (2010). Idleness aversion
and the
need for justifiable busyness. Psychological Science, 21, 926 –
930.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610374738

Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. 2004. The time divide: Work,
family, and
gender inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jacobs, S. R., & Dodd, D. (2003). Student burnout as a function
of
personality, social support, and workload. Journal of College
Student
Development, 44, 291–303.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0028
Keinan, A., & Kivetz, R. (2011). Productivity orientation and
the con-
sumption of collectable experiences. Journal of Consumer
Research, 37,
935–950. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/657163
Kruger, J., & Evans, M. (2004). If you don’t want to be late,
enumerate:
Unpacking reduces the planning fallacy. Journal of
Experimental Social
Psychology, 40, 586 –598.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.001
Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R.,
Chun, W. Y.,
& Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. In M. P.
Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp.
331–
378). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1980). Determinants of relapse:
Implica-
tions for the maintenance of behavior change. In P. O. Davidson

& S. M.
Davidson (Eds.), Behavioral medicine: Changing health
lifestyles (pp.
410 – 452). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. W. (1992).
Measuring causal
attributions: The revised causal dimension scale (CDSII).
Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 566 –573.
0146167292185006
Merrens, M. R., & Garrett, J. B. (1975). The Protestant Ethic
Scale as a
predictor of repetitive work performance. Journal of Applied
Psychol-
ogy, 60, 125–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076297
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri

us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00441

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.12.001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.12.001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967%2889%2990144-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967%2889%2990144-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.08.001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.08.001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/26.3.239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/26.3.239
https://hbr.org/2015/04/the-remedy-for-unproductive-busyness
https://hbr.org/2015/04/the-remedy-for-unproductive-busyness
http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/BJN20041135
http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/BJN20041135
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0028
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.001

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of
ability,
subjective experience, task choice, and performance.
Psychological Re-
view, 91, 328 –346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.91.3.328
Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2012). The IKEA
effect: When
labor leads to love. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 453–
460.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002
O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Doing it now or later.
The American
Economic Review, 89, 103–124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.1.103
Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. L. (1989). Causal attributions and
perceived
performance: Consequences for college students’ achievement
and per-
ceived control in different instructional conditions. Journal of
Educa-
tional Psychology, 81, 164 –172.
.81.2.164
Polivy, J., Heatherton, T. F., & Herman, C. P. (1988). Self-
esteem, re-
straint, and eating behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
97, 354 –
356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.97.3.354
Rifkin, J. (1987). Time wars: The primary conflict in human

history. New
York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.
Robinson, J. P., & Godbey, G. (2005). Busyness as usual. Social
Research,
72, 407– 426.
Robinson, J., & Godbey, G. (2010). Time for life: The
surprising ways
Americans use their time. University Park, PA: Penn State
Press.
Schor, J. (1992). The overworked American: The unexpected
decline of
leisure. New York, NY: Basic books.
Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the
things we do: A
grounded theory of academic procrastination. Journal of
Educational
Psychology, 99, 12–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.99.1.12
Schulte, B. (2014). Overwhelmed: Work, love, and play when
no one has
the time. New York, N.Y.: Sarah Crichton/Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Scott, M. L., Nowlis, S. M., Mandel, N., & Morales, A. C.
(2008). The
effects of reduced food size and package size on the
consumption
behavior of restrained and unrestrained eaters. Journal of
Consumer
Research, 35, 391– 405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/591103

Seki, Y. (2008). Working condition factors associated with time
pressure of
nurses in Japanese hospitals. Journal of Occupational Health,
50, 181–
190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1539/joh.L7031
Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). The challenge of
change in goal
systems. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), The handbook
of
motivation science (pp. 217–229). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Shu, S. B., & Gneezy, A. (2010). Procrastination of enjoyable
experiences.
Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 933–944.
jmkr.47.5.933
Soman, D., & Cheema, A. (2004). When goals are
counterproductive: The
effects of violation of a behavioral goal on subsequent
performance.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 52– 62.
383423
Tormala, Z. L., & DeSensi, V. L. (2008). The perceived
informational
basis of attitudes: Implications for subjective ambivalence.
Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 275–287.
0146167207310029
Vohs, K. D., Park, J. K., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2013). Self-

affirmation can
enable goal disengagement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychol-
ogy, 104, 14 –27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030478
Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of
capitalism.
London, UK: University Books.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement
motivation and
emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548 –573.
0033-295X.92.4.548
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and
emotion. New
York, NY: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4612-
4948-1
White, M. P., & Dolan, P. (2009). Accounting for the richness
of daily
activities. Psychological Science, 20, 1000 –1008.
.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02392.x
Wilcox, K., Block, L. G., & Eisenstein, E. M. (2011). Leave
home without
it? The effects of credit card debt and available credit on
spending.
Journal of Marketing Research, 48(Suppl.), S78 –S90.
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1509/jmkr.48.SPL.S78
Received September 23, 2014

Revision received December 17, 2015
Accepted December 23, 2015 �
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite
APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at
http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become
available!
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of

it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so

le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d

is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.1.103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1539/joh.L7031
http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.933

http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030478
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02392.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02392.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.SPL.S78
http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.SPL.S78How Being Busy Can
Increase Motivation and Reduce Task Completion TimeMissed
Deadlines Decrease Motivation to Complete a TaskBusyness
and Task CompletionOverview of StudiesStudy
1MethodPretestParticipantsProcedureResults and
DiscussionManipulation checkEffective time usageTask
motivationStudy 2MethodParticipantsProcedureResults and
DiscussionStudy 3MethodParticipantsProcedureResults and
DiscussionStudy 4MethodParticipantsProcedureResults and
DiscussionStudy 5DataResults and DiscussionGeneral
DiscussionImplications for TheoryImplications for
ProductivityReferences

Observation Video Program 4Observ.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Observation Video Program 4Observ.docx (20)

More from cherishwinsland (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Observation Video Program 4Observ.docx