Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Walk in Their Shoes to Navigate Your Own Path: Learning About Procrastination Through A Serious Game

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that ProcrastiMate, a text-adventure game where players act as counselors for procrastinating non-player characters, supports experiential learning about procrastination, reduces negative emotions tied to it, and…

desk verdict A solid exploratory study of a serious game for procrastination learning with a genuinely useful design insight, but the evaluation oversells the causal claim; worth reviewing with requests for tempering and further validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15770 v1 pith:Q3C5LFUP submitted 2025-01-27 cs.HC

Runhua Zhang , Jiaqi Gan , Shangyuan Gao , Siyi Chen , Xinyu Wu , Dong Chen , Yulin Tian , Qi Wang
show 1 more author
Pengcheng An
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords ProcrastinationSeriousgamesLearningReflectionTextadventuregamePsychologicaldistanceExperientialCopingstrategies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the best way to intervene on procrastination may be to teach people about it, not just help them manage time. It presents ProcrastiMate, a text-adventure game in which college students play a counselor helping fictional students overcome procrastination, with stories customized from players' own experiences and adaptive dialogue feedback. A two-week field study with 27 self-identified procrastinators found that the game supported learning and self-reflection, significantly lowered negative procrastination-related emotions, and led players to experiment with new coping strategies in their daily lives. The authors' central proposal is that balancing personal relevance with psychological distance—letting players engage with familiar scenarios through another character's perspective—makes this educational approach safe and effective.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the counselor role combined with customized narratives and adaptive dialogue. Players are assigned the role of a procrastination counselor who helps non-player characters (NPCs) solve procrastination cases, where each case is built from Piers Steel's four causes of procrastination and the correct coping strategy cards map to those causes. Level 1 uses stories drawn from a shared pool of college procrastination scenarios, Level 2 personalizes stories from each player's pre-interview, and GPT-4-generated NPC feedback explains in red or green text why a selected strategy does or does not work. This machinery creates the psychological distance that lets players reflect on self-relevant content without feeling judged, which the paper identifies as the key to safe and effective learning.

What would settle it

A randomized controlled trial in which one group plays ProcrastiMate and a control group receives an equally engaging non-procrastination game or a neutral discussion, followed by a validated knowledge test and an objective behavioral measure such as actual time-to-start on a real assignment, would settle the causal claim; if the control group shows the same emotion and behavior changes, the game is not the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a design mechanism: casting players as counselors for in-game characters whose procrastination stories mirror their own lets players learn the causes and coping strategies of procrastination without triggering the defensiveness that direct "you are procrastinating" framing causes. The paper grounds the game content in Piers Steel's four-cause model of procrastination (low self-efficacy, low perceived task value, high impulsiveness, and distant delay) and a set of 40 coping strategy cards, then evaluates the game through Kolb's experiential learning cycle. In the field study, participants moved through concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation, reporting that they began analyzing their own triggers in the four-cause framework, reconsidered old strategies, and tried new ones in real life. The quantitative finding that negative emotions about procrastination decreased after play is offered as evidence that learning reduced guilt and self-blame.

Load-bearing premise

The findings assume that the game itself—not the pre-interview, the act of participating in a study about procrastination, or a desire to please the researchers—produced the measured drop in negative emotion and the reported learning and behavior changes, because there was no control group and learning was only self-reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the finding holds, HCI interventions for procrastination can target understanding and emotional reframing rather than only time management and task tracking.
  • Players' reports of applying new strategies in daily life suggest that game-acquired coping knowledge can transfer beyond the virtual environment, even without a built-in behavior-change mechanism.
  • The counselor-role pattern—indirect, other-directed engagement with self-relevant scenarios—can be reused for other psychologically sensitive topics such as emotional eating or impostor syndrome.
  • The significant drop in negative procrastination-related emotion implies that educational gameplay may interrupt the guilt-anxiety-procrastination cycle at the emotional level, complementing behavioral tools.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A head-to-head comparison between the counselor-framed game and a direct second-person version would isolate whether psychological distance, rather than the game's content, is the active ingredient; the paper's design cannot separate these.
  • Because the adaptive dialogues were generated by GPT-4, a simpler scripted-dialogue condition would reveal how much of the scaffolding effect depends on LLM-driven responsiveness versus well-written feedback content.
  • The study measured emotion and self-reported application only at two weeks; an objective follow-up such as assignment submission times or task-start latency would test whether the reduced negative emotion and reported experimentation translate into sustained behavioral change.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents ProcrastiMate, a text-adventure serious game intended to help college students learn about procrastination's psychological causes and coping strategies. The design is grounded in Piers Steel's four-cause framework and a 40-card strategy deck, and it implements three design considerations: customized stories (Level 2 built from each participant's pre-interview), a counselor role, and adaptive GPT-4-driven dialogues. A formative Wizard-of-Oz study with 5 players and 2 experts led to three design goals, and the final game was evaluated in a two-week field study with 27 self-selected participants using pre/post interviews, the NPEAPS emotion scale, and descriptive learning/engagement/empathy scales. The findings report significant pre/post reduction in negative emotions and qualitative themes mapped to Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle, plus evidence of relatability, psychological safety, and real-life strategy experimentation. The paper contributes a design rationale and empirical insights for using serious games for procrastination education.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to HCI by shifting procrastination interventions from purely behavioral tools toward experiential learning, and it articulates a concrete design principle—balancing personal relevance with psychological distance—that could inform serious games for other sensitive psychological topics. The strengths include the theory-grounded game content (Steel's framework and 40 strategy cards), the clear articulation of design goals, the rich qualitative quotes from participants, and the detailed supplementary materials (prompt templates and interview outlines) that improve reproducibility. However, the evidence is limited by the absence of a control condition, the lack of any objective learning measure, the self-selected and homogeneous sample, and the partly circular design of the personalization; these limitations bound the strength of the causal claims that can be drawn.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2 and 7.1] The central claim that ProcrastiMate 'facilitated learning and self-reflection' rests on a within-subjects field study with no control condition. The significant reduction in negative emotions (t(26)=2.869, p<0.01) could be produced by the pre-interview discussion about procrastination, demand characteristics, or regression to the mean. The paper should either add a comparison condition (e.g., an information-only or non-personalized game arm) or explicitly temper the causal claims and discuss these alternative explanations with reference to the data.
  2. [Section 5.1.3 and 7.3.1] The finding that players found the stories highly relatable is partly circular because the Level 2 stories were generated directly from each participant's own pre-interview disclosures. The quotes in 7.3.1 (e.g., 'mirrored my own experiences exactly') may reflect recognition of one's own narrative rather than a general property of the game design. To support the claim that the customization design is effective, the paper should compare relatability between the personalized Level 2 cases and the non-personalized Level 1 cases, or at least explicitly discuss this confound.
  3. [Section 6.2 (Stage 3)] The post-interview was scheduled when participants reached 'the midpoint of Level 2,' meaning learning and experience measures were collected before the game was completed. This timing should be reported as a limitation and its potential effect on the observed outcomes discussed, since partial exposure may understate or alter the learning effects relative to full playthrough.
  4. [Section 8.4] The limitations section omits three threats that directly qualify the main claims: the lack of a control group, the self-selected and single-university sample with mostly high procrastination tendencies, and the reliance on self-report without any objective measure of learning or behavior change. These should be added and their implications for the claims in the abstract and Discussion should be acknowledged.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 7.1] The descriptive statistics for the Experiencing Scale, EGameFlow, and State Empathy are reported as means without inferential statistics or comparison benchmarks; consider clarifying that these are auxiliary descriptive indicators rather than evidence of effectiveness.
  2. [Figure 3] The figure caption is missing a period, and the figure is referenced in the text without a clear pointer to its full content; also the callouts 'Figure 3-b' and 'Figure 3-c' could be introduced more explicitly in Section 4.2.
  3. [Section 4.4] The three design goals are listed without explicitly tying each goal to the finding from Section 4.3 that motivated it; adding a sentence of connection would improve readability.
  4. [Section 7.1] Please report effect sizes for the NPEAPS pre/post comparisons to help readers gauge the magnitude of the change.
  5. [Section 5.5] The description of the GPT-4 integration is clear, but the paper should mention whether any guardrails or validation were used to ensure the generated feedback is faithful to the theory-grounded content; this is relevant to reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One design-consideration finding is self-definitional: Level 2 stories are built from each participant's own pre-interview experiences, so the reported relatability is the recognition of the input rather than an empirically discovered effect; the central learning claim remains partly independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1.3 (design) and Section 7.3.1 (finding)]
    "For Level 2, we adopted an individualized customization approach ... tailoring the stories to each player’s unique procrastination experiences shared during pre-interviews. ... the in-game customized procrastination stories struck a chord with players, creating a strong sense of relatability and eliciting empathy ... 'Many stories in the game feel like they are about myself' (P06)."

    The independent variable is literally constructed from the dependent variable: Level 2 story content is assembled from each participant's own pre-interview accounts of their procrastination. The post-interview finding that stories feel personal and 'about myself' is therefore the recognition of the participant's own narrative, not independent evidence that the customization design facilitated relatability. Since every participant received a story set derived from their own disclosures (with missing cases supplemented from other participants' stories), the claimed effect is definitionally entailed by the stimulus.

full rationale

The paper's central learning claims are not circular. The pre/post NPEAPS change is a genuine empirical measurement, the ELC-coded reports of new strategies, changed attitudes, and real-world experimentation are downstream states and behaviors not definitionally contained in the game's inputs, and the theoretical grounding (Steel's four causes, Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle) is external to the paper. The only load-bearing reduction is the Level 2 customization-to-relatability finding, which is self-definitional because the stories are fitted to each participant's own pre-interview disclosures and then the outcome is that participants recognize themselves. This affects one design-consideration claim, not the entire derivation chain, so a score of 4 is appropriate: partial circularity in a sub-claim, with the central learning outcome retaining independent content. The absence of a control condition is a validity threat and is not explicitly listed among the Section 8.4 limitations, but it is a confound rather than a circularity and does not by itself raise the circularity score. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; the cited frameworks are external literature.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No quantitative model or fitted parameters are involved. The paper imports theoretical assumptions from psychology (Steel's framework), the coping strategy literature, and Kolb's experiential learning model. These are not tested by the study. No invented theoretical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Piers Steel's four-cause framework of procrastination (low self-efficacy, low task value, high impulsiveness, distant delay) accurately captures the key causes.
    Adopted from Steel (2007) as the theoretical foundation for game design (Section 2.1, Section 3). The paper does not test this framework.
  • domain assumption Learning about procrastination causes and coping strategies can help individuals develop coping strategies and resilience.
    Argued from prior literature (Steel and Klingsieck, 2016) in Section 2.1; not empirically tested by this study.
  • domain assumption The 40 coping strategies from literature are valid and correctly categorized into the four causes.
    The game's win conditions depend on these mappings; references provided in supplementary, not in text.
  • domain assumption Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle is an appropriate lens for coding the interview data.
    Used for deductive thematic analysis in Section 6.3.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Walk in Their Shoes to Navigate Your Own Path: Learning About Procrastination Through A Serious Game." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q3C5LFUP

@misc{pith2026250115770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Walk in Their Shoes to Navigate Your Own Path: Learning About Procrastination Through A Serious Game},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q3C5LFUP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15770}
}
read the original abstract

Procrastination, the voluntary delay of tasks despite potential negative consequences, has prompted numerous time and task management interventions in the HCI community. While these interventions have shown promise in addressing specific behaviors, psychological theories suggest that learning about procrastination itself may help individuals develop their own coping strategies and build mental resilience. However, little research has explored how to support this learning process through HCI approaches. We present ProcrastiMate, a text adventure game where players learn about procrastination's causes and experiment with coping strategies by guiding in-game characters in managing relatable scenarios. Our field study with 27 participants revealed that ProcrastiMate facilitated learning and self-reflection while maintaining psychological distance, motivating players to integrate newly acquired knowledge in daily life. This paper contributes empirical insights on leveraging serious games to facilitate learning about procrastination and offers design implications for addressing psychological challenges through HCI approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15770 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In this study, we designed and evaluated ProcrastiMate, a serious game to help players learn about procrastination. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall research aim of our study and the corresponding research pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The initial gameplay and the formative study settings: a) The gameplay designed for formative study with initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of ProcrastiMate. a) The game structure is based on four causes of procrastination and 40 coping strategies. The correspondences between causes and strategies guides the gameplay and determines the win conditions. The causes are organised into four chapters, e…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper: Three design considerations for crafting procrastination stories in Level 1. Lower: A translated, detailed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper: Four design considerations for crafting procrastination stories in Level 2. Lower: A translated, detailed example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overview of OpenAI API calls in ProcrastiMate (see supplementary for predefined prompt templates) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper: A deck of 40 coping strategy cards, with 10 strategies corresponding to each of the four main causes of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Icek Ajzen, Cornelia Czasch, and Michael G Flood. 2009. From intentions to be- havior: Implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness 1. Journal of applied social psychology 39, 6 (2009), 1356–1372

    2009

  2. [2]

    Riku Arakawa, Hiromu Yakura, and Masataka Goto. 2023. CatAlyst: domain- extensible intervention for preventing task procrastination using large generative models. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2023

  3. [3]

    Elliot Aronson. 1969. The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In Advances in experimental social psychology . Vol. 4. Elsevier, 1–34

    1969

  4. [4]

    Trevor Ashby, Braden K Webb, Gregory Knapp, Jackson Searle, and Nancy Fulda

  5. [5]

    Mathias Bauer and Malte Weiß. 2023. Improving Environmental Knowledge with a Serious Game: An experimental study. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–10

    2023

  6. [6]

    Aaron T Beck. 1970. Cognitive therapy: Nature and relation to behavior therapy. Behavior therapy 1, 2 (1970), 184–200

    1970

  7. [7]

    Brett L Beck, Susan R Koons, and Debra L Milgrim. 2000. Correlates and conse- quences of behavioral procrastination: The effects of academic procrastination, self-consciousness, self-esteem and self-handicapping. Journal of social behavior and personality 15, 5 (2000), 3

    2000

  8. [8]

    Rosanna Bellini, Simon Forrest, Nicole Westmarland, Dan Jackson, and Jan David Smeddinck. 2020. Choice-point: fostering awareness and choice with perpetrators in domestic violence interventions. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    work page 2020

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Gery Beswick, Esther D Rothblum, and Leon Mann. 1988. Psychological an- tecedents of student procrastination. Australian psychologist 23, 2 (1988), 207– 217

    1988

  2. [10]

    Ananya Bhattacharjee, Yuchen Zeng, Sarah Yi Xu, Dana Kulzhabayeva, Minyi Ma, Rachel Kornfield, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Alex Mariakakis, Mary P Czerwinski, Anastasia Kuzminykh, et al. 2024. Understanding the Role of Large Language Models in Personalizing and Scaffolding Strategie...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  4. [12]

    B. J. C. Claessens, W. van Eerde, C. G. Rutte, and R. A. Roe. 2007. A review of the time management literature. Personnel Review 36, 2 (2007), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710726136

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    Joel M Cooper. 2007. Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Alena Denisova and Paul Cairns. 2015. First person vs. third person perspective in digital games: do player preferences affect immersion?. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems . 145–148

    2015

  7. [15]

    Stephen H Edwards, Joshua Martin, and Clfford A Shaffer. 2015. Examining classroom interventions to reduce procrastination. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education . 254–259. CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, ...

    2015

  8. [16]

    Min Fan, Jianyu Fan, Sheng Jin, Alissa N Antle, and Philippe Pasquier. 2018. EmoStory: A Game-based System Supporting Children’s Emotional Development. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6

    2018

  9. [17]

    Fadwa Yasin Flemban. 2024. Assessing Learning Outcomes Through Digital Game-Playing: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 23, 1 (2024), 445–468

    2024

  10. [18]

    Gordon L Flett, Murray Stainton, Paul L Hewitt, Simon B Sherry, and Clarry Lay. 2012. Procrastination automatic thoughts as a personality construct: An analysis of the procrastinatory cognitions inventory. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy 30 (2012), 223–236

    2012

  11. [19]

    Anirudh Ganesh, Chinenye Ndulue, and Rita Orji. 2023. Tailoring a persuasive game to promote secure smartphone behaviour. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2023

  12. [20]

    Kathrin Gerling, Alberto Fuchslocher, Ralf Schmidt, Nicole Krämer, and Maic Masuch. 2011. Designing and evaluating casual health games for children and teenagers with cancer. In Entertainment Computing–ICEC 2011: 10th Interna- tional Conference, ICEC 2011, Vancouver, Canada, O...

    2011

  13. [21]

    Kathrin Maria Gerling, Regan L Mandryk, Max Valentin Birk, Matthew Miller, and Rita Orji. 2014. The effects of embodied persuasive games on player attitudes toward people using wheelchairs. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 3413–3422

    2014

  14. [22]

    Annika Gieselmann and Reinhard Pietrowsky. 2016. Treating procrastination chat-based versus face-to-face: an RCT evaluating the role of self-disclosure and perceived counselor’s characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016), 444–452

    2016

  15. [23]

    Debra M Glick, Daniel J Millstein, and Susan M Orsillo. 2014. A preliminary investigation of the role of psychological inflexibility in academic procrastination. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 3, 2 (2014), 81–88

    2014

  16. [24]

    Debra M Glick and Susan M Orsillo. 2015. An investigation of the efficacy of acceptance-based behavioral therapy for academic procrastination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144, 2 (2015), 400

    2015

  17. [25]

    I’ll stop procrastinating now!

    Carola Grunschel, Justine Patrzek, Katrin B Klingsieck, and Stefan Fries. 2018. “I’ll stop procrastinating now!” Fostering specific processes of self-regulated learning to reduce academic procrastination. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community 46, 2 (2018), 143–157

    2018

  18. [26]

    Alexander Häfner, Verena Oberst, and Armin Stock. 2014. Avoiding procrastina- tion through time management: An experimental intervention study.Educational Studies 40, 3 (2014), 352–360

    2014

  19. [27]

    Beverley Hancock, Elizabeth Ockleford, Kate Windridge, et al. 2001. An introduc- tion to qualitative research . Trent focus group London

    2001

  20. [28]

    Pat Harrigan and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2010. Second person: Role-playing and story in games and playable media . MIT press

    2010

  21. [29]

    Michael A Hedderich, Natalie N Bazarova, Wenting Zou, Ryun Shim, Xinda Ma, and Qian Yang. 2024. A Piece of Theatre: Investigating How Teachers Design LLM Chatbots to Assist Adolescent Cyberbullying Education. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing S...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Yew Ken Heng. 2021. ReWIND: psychoeducation game leveraging cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to enhance emotion control for generalized anxiety disorder. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–5

    2021

  23. [31]

    Takafumi Higashi, Koya Esaki, Masahiro Watanabe, and Naoki Mukawa. 2023. Personalized Agent-Based Procrastination Suppression System. In Proceedings of the 35th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference . 657–668

    2023

  24. [32]

    Michael Holly, Lisa Habich, and Johanna Pirker. 2024. GameDevDojo-An Edu- cational Game for Teaching Game Development Concepts. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games . 1–9

    2024

  25. [33]

    Zaidat Ibrahim, Clara Caldeira, and Chia-Fang Chung. 2024. Supporting Experi- ential Learning in People with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2024

  26. [34]

    Nanna Inie and Mircea F Lungu. 2021. Aiki-turning online procrastination into microlearning. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2021

  27. [35]

    Andrés Isaza-Giraldo, Paulo Bala, Pedro F Campos, and Lucas Pereira. 2024. Prompt-Gaming: A Pilot Study on LLM-Evaluating Agent in a Meaningful Energy Game. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2024

  28. [36]

    Yewon Jin, SeonYul Lee, SeoHyeong Kim, Jiyeon Seo, Kyuha Jung, Hajin Lim, and Joonhwan Lee. 2023. Divrsity: Design and development of group role-play vr platform for disability awareness education. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 161–174

    2023

  29. [37]

    Bogoan Kim, Sung-In Kim, Sangwon Park, Hee Jeong Yoo, Hwajung Hong, and Kyungsik Han. 2023. RoutineAid: Externalizing Key Design Elements to Sup- port Daily Routines of Individuals with Autism. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2023

  30. [38]

    Jihoon Kim and Darla M Castelli. 2021. Effects of gamification on behavioral change in education: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, 7 (2021), 3550

    2021

  31. [39]

    Jeanine Kirchner-Krath, Manuel Schmidt-Kraepelin, Sofia Schöbel, Mathias Ull- rich, Ali Sunyaev, and Harald FO Von Korflesch. 2024. Outplay Your Weaker Self: A Mixed-Methods Study on Gamification to Overcome Procrastination in Academia. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on ...

    2024

  32. [40]

    David A Kolb. 2014. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press

    2014

  33. [41]

    Clarry H Lay and Henri C Schouwenburg. 1993. Trait procrastination, time management. Journal of social Behavior and personality 8, 4 (1993), 647–662

    1993

  34. [42]

    So Yeon Lee and Nathan C Hall. 2020. Understanding procrastination in first-year undergraduates: an application of attribution theory. Social Sciences 9, 8 (2020), 136

    2020

  35. [43]

    Jingxian Liao and Hao-Chuan Wang. 2022. Nudge for reflective mind: Under- standing how accessing peer concept mapping and commenting affects reflection of high-stakes information. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–7

    2022

  36. [44]

    Pragya Lodha, Ahana Sharma, Gale Dsouza, Ishwari Marathe, Shanaya Dsouza, Shivani Rawal, Vidhi Pandya, and Avinash De Sousa. 2019. General procrastina- tion scale: development of validity and reliability. (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Andrés Lucero. 2015. Using affinity diagrams to evaluate interactive prototypes. In Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2015: 15th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Bamberg, Germany, September 14-18, 2015, Proceedings, Part II 15 . Springer, 231–248

    2015

  38. [46]

    David R Michael and Sandra L Chen. 2005. Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. Muska & Lipman/Premier-Trade

    2005

  39. [47]

    Gregg Mulry, Raymond Fleming, and Ann C Gottschalk. 1994. Psychological reactance and brief treatment of academic procrastination. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy 9, 1 (1994), 41–56

    1994

  40. [48]

    Erik Nilsen, Elizabeth Safran, Peter Drake, and Bryan Sebok. 2020. Playing a serious game for earthquake preparedness: Effects of resource richness and avatar choice. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7

    2020

  41. [49]

    Rita Orji, Lennart E Nacke, and Chrysanne Di Marco. 2017. Towards personality- driven persuasive health games and gamified systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1015–1027

    2017

  42. [50]

    Shane Gregory Owens, Christine G Bowman, and Charles A Dill. 2008. Over- coming procrastination: the effect of implementation intentions 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38, 2 (2008), 366–384

    2008

  43. [51]

    Nandini Pasumarthy, Shreyas Nisal, Jessica Danaher, Elise van den Hoven, and Rohit Ashok Khot. 2024. Go-Go Biome: Evaluation of a Casual Game for Gut Health Engagement and Reflection. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2024

  44. [52]

    Juanan Pereira and Óscar Díaz. 2021. Struggling to keep tabs on capstone projects: a chatbot to tackle student procrastination. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 22, 1 (2021), 1–22

    2021

  45. [53]

    Timothy A Pychyl and Fuschia M Sirois. 2016. Procrastination, emotion regula- tion, and well-being. In Procrastination, health, and well-being. Elsevier, 163–188

    2016

  46. [54]

    Ashwin Rajadesingan, Daniel Choo, Jessica Zhang, Mia Inakage, Ceren Budak, and Paul Resnick. 2023. GuesSync!: An Online Casual Game To Reduce Affective Polarization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–33

    2023

  47. [55]

    Marie My Lien Rebetez, Lucien Rochat, Catherine Barsics, and Martial Van der Linden. 2016. Procrastination as a self-regulation failure: The role of inhibition, negative affect, and gender. Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016), 435–439

    2016

  48. [56]

    Kenneth G Rice, Clarissa ME Richardson, and Dustin Clark. 2012. Perfectionism, procrastination, and psychological distress. Journal of counseling psychology 59, 2 (2012), 288

    2012

  49. [57]

    Alexander Rozental, Per Carlbring, et al . 2014. Understanding and treating procrastination: A review of a common self-regulatory failure. Psychology 5, 13 (2014), 1488

    2014

  50. [58]

    Alexander Rozental, David Forsström, Simon Nilsson, Angela Rizzo, and Per Carlbring. 2014. Group versus Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for procrastination: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Internet Inter- ventions 1, 2 (2014), 84–89

    2014

  51. [59]

    Book Sadprasid, Anne Mei, Alex Mariakakis, Scott Bateman, and Fanny Chevalier

  52. [60]

    Herman Saksono, Carmen Castaneda-Sceppa, Jessica Hoffman, Magy Seif El-Nasr, Vivien Morris, and Andrea G Parker. 2019. Social reflections on fitness tracking data: A study with families in low-SES neighborhoods. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in com...

    2019

  53. [61]

    Henri C Schouwenburg and JanTjeerd Groenewoud. 2001. Study motivation under social temptation; effects of trait procrastination.Personality and individual differences 30, 2 (2001), 229–240. Walk in Their Shoes to Navigate Your Own Path: Learning About Procrastination Through A...

    2001

  54. [62]

    Gregory Schraw, Theresa Wadkins, and Lori Olafson. 2007. Doing the things we do: a grounded theory of academic procrastination. Journal of Educational psychology 99, 1 (2007), 12

    2007

  55. [63]

    Caroline Senécal, Richard Koestner, and Robert J Vallerand. 1995. Self-regulation and academic procrastination. The journal of social psychology 135, 5 (1995), 607–619

    1995

  56. [64]

    Lijiang Shen. 2010. On a scale of state empathy during message processing. Western Journal of Communication 74, 5 (2010), 504–524

    2010

  57. [65]

    David K Sherman and Geoffrey L Cohen. 2006. The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. Advances in experimental social psychology 38 (2006), 183–242

    2006

  58. [66]

    Chen Shu-Hui, Wu Wann-Yih, and Jason Dennison. 2018. Validation of EGame- Flow: A self-report scale for measuring user experience in video game play. Computers in Entertainment (CIE) 16, 3 (2018), 1–15

    2018

  59. [67]

    Fuschia Sirois and Timothy Pychyl. 2013. Procrastination and the priority of short-term mood regulation: Consequences for future self. Social and personality psychology compass 7, 2 (2013), 115–127

    2013

  60. [68]

    Fuschia M Sirois and Ryan Kitner. 2015. Less adaptive or more maladaptive? A meta–analytic investigation of procrastination and coping. European Journal of Personality 29, 4 (2015), 433–444

    2015

  61. [69]

    Petr Slovák and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2015. Teaching and developing social and emotional skills with technology. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 22, 4 (2015), 1–34

    2015

  62. [70]

    Laura J Solomon and Esther D Rothblum. 1984. Academic procrastination: fre- quency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of counseling psychology 31, 4 (1984), 503

    1984

  63. [71]

    Kurt Squire. 2011. Video Games and Learning: Teaching and Participatory Culture in the Digital Age

    2011

  64. [72]

    Piers Steel. 2007. The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological bulletin 133, 1 (2007), 65

    2007

  65. [73]

    Piers Steel and Katrin B Klingsieck. 2016. Academic procrastination: Psychologi- cal antecedents revisited. Australian Psychologist 51, 1 (2016), 36–46

    2016

  66. [74]

    Ian Steenstra, Prasanth Murali, Rebecca B Perkins, Natalie Joseph, Michael K Paasche-Orlow, and Timothy Bickmore. 2024. Engaging and Entertaining Adoles- cents in Health Education Using LLM-Generated Fantasy Narrative Games and Virtual Agents. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI ...

    2024

  67. [75]

    Karen L Stock and David Kolb. 2021. The experiencing scale: an experiential learning gauge of engagement in learning. Experiential Learning & Teaching in Higher Education 4, 1 (2021), 3–21

    2021

  68. [76]

    Melanie Turner and Flaviu A Hodis. 2023. A systematic review of interventions to reduce academic procrastination and implications for instructor-based classroom interventions. Educational Psychology Review 35, 4 (2023), 118

    2023

  69. [77]

    Ericka Valladares, Natalia Beneitez, Min-Hung Chiang, Ting Kai Chen, Da-Yo Tseng, Avon Lin, and Kelvin Cheng-Yuan Li. 2016. Designing a bet placing mobile application to tackle procrastination. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiqu...

    2016

  70. [78]

    Wendelien Van Eerde. 2000. Procrastination: Self-regulation in initiating aversive goals. Applied Psychology 49, 3 (2000), 372–389

    2000

  71. [79]

    Wendelien van Eerde and Katrin B Klingsieck. 2018. Overcoming procrastination? A meta-analysis of intervention studies. Educational Research Review 25 (2018), 73–85

    2018

  72. [80]

    Edwin AJ Van Hooft, Marise Ph Born, Toon W Taris, Henk van der Flier, and Roland WB Blonk. 2005. Bridging the gap between intentions and behavior: Im- plementation intentions, action control, and procrastination.Journal of Vocational Behavior 66, 2 (2005), 238–256

    2005

  73. [81]

    Zikai Alex Wen, Yiming Li, Reid Wade, Jeffrey Huang, and Amy Wang. 2017. What. hack: Learn phishing email defence the fun way. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 234–237

    2017

  74. [82]

    Frank Wieber and Peter M Gollwitzer. 2010. Overcoming procrastination through planning. (2010)

    2010

  75. [83]

    Christopher A Wolters, Sungjun Won, and Maryam Hussain. 2017. Examining the relations of time management and procrastination within a model of self- regulated learning. Metacognition and learning 12 (2017), 381–399

    2017

  76. [84]

    Ge-Han Wu, Ling-Jun Liu, Yu-Hsuan Tseng, Yung-Han Kao, and Fu-En Wang

  77. [85]

    Fanzhi Zhu. 2023. The Positive and Negative Aspects of Procrastination in College Students. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences 10 (2023), 203–208. A 40 COPING STRATEGY CARDS CATEGORIZED BY FOUR CAUSES OF PROCRASTINATION In this appendix, we present the 40 cop...

    2023

  78. [2021]

    Dillydally: Overcome your procrastination via social network. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2021 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2021 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. 86–87

    2021

  79. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Personalized quest and dialogue generation in role-playing games: A knowledge graph-and language model-based approach. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2023

  80. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Leveraging Idle Games to Incentivize Intermittent and Frequent Practice of Deep Breathing. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.