It\u2019s not uncommon to catch preschoolers dilly-dallying when they\u2019re supposed to be tidying or school-aged children putting off homework for more desirable tasks.<\/p>\n
But are these forms of procrastination? And do they influence future adult tendencies?<\/p>\n
These are questions Brock Professor of Psychology Caitlin Mahy is taking steps to answer.<\/p>\n
\u201cResearch on procrastination in young children is an emerging field,\u201d she says. \u201cThe same measures we use to study adult procrastination don\u2019t necessarily apply to children at different stages of development.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mahy has co-published a paper calling for procrastination definitions, theory and interventions to be informed by studies on adults and children, which have so far run parallel to one another.<\/p>\n
By taking this approach, researchers will more deeply understand how procrastination plays out in young children as they mature, leading to better early-life interventions, she says.<\/p>\n
The paper maps out children\u2019s typical procrastination-type behaviours in various stages beginning with preschoolers (ages two to four), who put off tasks and household routines; older preschoolers (ages five and six), who delay doing homework and household chores; elementary and middle-school children (ages seven to 13), who experience an increase in academic procrastination; and high school teens (ages 14 to 18), for whom procrastination is prominent at school as competing demands on time increase.<\/p>\n
As time passes, children generate more simultaneous goals, while parents play a decreasing role in generating, directing and regulating goals for their children.<\/p>\n
Researchers probing for a greater understanding of these behaviours mostly rely on reports from parents describing what they see with their children compared to studies on adult procrastinators who fill out questionnaires on their own behaviours, says Mahy.<\/p>\n
The standard definition of procrastination includes five criteria: there is an intention to perform the task; the task is delayed; the delay is voluntary; the delay is unnecessary; and future negative outcomes are expected.<\/p>\n
\u201cVery young children have difficulty reporting on their intentions,\u201d says Mahy, \u201cEven if we study their behaviour, you don’t necessarily know the child\u2019s intentions, you can\u2019t read their mind to see if they\u2019ve anticipated future consequences, you\u2019re just observing their delay in performing tasks.\u201d<\/p>\n
Because young children\u2019s abilities to be introspective and fully understand the consequences of their delays are absent, their behaviours can\u2019t be strictly classified as being \u201cprocrastination, according to the current, prevalent definition,\u201d says Mahy.<\/p>\n
\u201cInstead, we can say these may be early pre-cursors or represent emerging procrastination behaviour.\u201d<\/p>\n
In addition to reshaping the definition of procrastination to capture children\u2019s experience, Mahy and her team describe how theory and intervention could be further improved by considering adult and child research.<\/p>\n
They outline several cognitive abilities, such as emotion regulation, that likely contribute to the development of procrastination. They also recommend more research on the development of children\u2019s procrastination over time and across age ranges, as well as the creation of more objective ways of assessing children\u2019s procrastination.<\/p>\n