Summary: New field research indicates that to reduce procrastination you should either avoid specifying a deadline or set a very short one; long deadlines can unintentionally encourage delay and lower response rates.
Source: University of Otago
Deadlines can prompt action, but longer deadlines often have the opposite effect.
Researchers at the University of Otago report that when asking others to help—whether soliciting donations, requesting a colleague’s input, or seeking a favor from a friend—how you frame the deadline significantly affects whether the request is completed. Their field experiment shows that either leaving the request open-ended or imposing a short deadline produces higher response rates than a distant deadline.
Led by Professor Stephen Knowles of the Otago Business School’s Department of Economics, the research team tested how different deadline lengths influenced task completion. Co-authors include Dr. Murat Genç (Department of Economics), Dr. Trudy Sullivan (Department of Preventive and Social Medicine), and Professor Maroš Servátka (Macquarie Graduate School of Management). Their findings were published in Economic Inquiry.
In the field experiment participants were invited to complete an online survey tied to a charitable donation. Each participant received one of three conditions: a one-week deadline, a one-month deadline, or no explicit deadline. The study tracked responses and timing of completion to measure how the deadline framing affected behavior.
Contrary to the common assumption that any deadline is better than none, the experiment found the lowest response rate occurred with the one-month deadline. Both the no-deadline group and the one-week deadline group produced substantially higher response rates and a concentration of early responses. The longer, one-month deadline appeared to reduce urgency, effectively giving people permission to delay and, in many cases, forget to act.
Professor Knowles explains the results as reflecting how people perceive urgency. Short deadlines create a clear cue to act quickly. In contrast, an extended deadline often diminishes that cue: recipients assume they have plenty of time, so they postpone the task and may become inattentive or forget altogether.
The pattern of responses suggests two effective approaches to increase cooperation and task completion: either leave the request without an explicit deadline, which can prompt intrinsic or implicit urgency, or set a tight, explicit deadline that signals immediate importance. A long deadline, while seemingly considerate, can unintentionally promote procrastination and reduce completion rates.
Although the experiment used a charitable survey as the context, the implications are broader. The authors note these findings apply to many everyday situations where one person requests help from another—email follow-ups, workplace assignments, favors between friends and family, or volunteer commitments. Adjusting how you communicate timing can improve outcomes in all these settings.
Professor Knowles hopes the research helps organizations and individuals reduce procrastination and increase responsiveness. “Many people genuinely intend to help or follow through, but without the right time cues they fail to act. Short deadlines or no explicit deadline at all can both lead to better completion rates than a long, distant deadline,” he says.
About this psychology research news
Author: Press Office
Source: University of Otago
Contact: Press Office – University of Otago
Image: The image is in the public domain
Original Research: Open access. “Procrastination and the non‐monotonic effect of deadlines on task completion,” by Stephen Knowles et al., Economic Inquiry
Abstract
Procrastination and the non‐monotonic effect of deadlines on task completion
This field experiment examines how the length of a deadline affects whether people complete a requested task. Participants were asked to complete an online survey that would trigger a donation to charity. They were randomly assigned to receive either a one-week deadline, a one-month deadline, or no deadline.
Results show a non-monotonic relationship: the one-month deadline produced the lowest completion rate, while no deadline and the one-week deadline resulted in higher completion and many early responses. The findings indicate that longer deadlines can reduce perceived urgency and increase opportunities for procrastination and forgetting, whereas short or unspecified deadlines can encourage prompt action.