The Power of Duration in Reducing Task Delays

Libby YoungJin Chun, PhD, Christophe Lembregts, PhD, and Bram Van den Bergh, PhD

People often struggle with completing tasks like giving feedback, signing up for various programs, or scheduling appointments. In fact, approximately 20% of adults chronically deal with regulating themselves with completing important tasks.¹ However, procrastination isn’t solely associated with poor time management skills. In many instances, psychological factors often influence an individual’s perception of tasks, particularly when a task appears complex or overwhelming.^2,3

Our pilot study supports this perspective: when deciding whether to delay a task, individuals consider their global state (e.g., internal motivation) and the anticipated utility of the task (e.g., aversiveness). Yet, they often overlook a fundamental task feature: duration. Among the 428 reasons participants gave for postponing tasks, only 2.23% referenced task duration. Our research demonstrates that this duration neglect occurs not only in retrospective evaluations, but also in prospection. While previous work (e.g., Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993) has documented duration neglect in recalling past experiences,⁴ our findings show that it also extends to prospective judgments, influencing decisions about whether to initiate a task in the present. By prompting individuals to consider task duration during prospection, we find they are significantly less likely to delay getting started.  

Connecting Task Delay with Implemental Mindset

The potential of using task duration as a self-regulatory strategy has been largely overlooked in the literature, making our discovery a novel contribution to the understanding of task delay. Previous research has primarily focused on more effortful or consumer-demanding techniques, such as setting deadlines or reminders, prioritizing tasks, or engaging in detailed planning and progress monitoring. In contrast, our approach offers a simpler and less demanding intervention—highlighting task duration—which raises a key theoretical question: why does this strategy help reduce tendencies toward task delay?

We hypothesized that this effect arises from fostering an implemental mindset—a cognitive orientation that promotes action. When individuals face a task, they must transition from a deliberative mindset, where they evaluate whether to pursue the goal, to an implemental mindset, where they focus on how to achieve it. Existing research has shown that planning techniques, such as identifying key action steps and specifying when, where, and how to execute them, are effective in activating the implemental mindset.^5,6 Our study investigates whether a simpler intervention—making task duration salient—can similarly trigger an implemental mindset and, in turn, reduce task delay

Study 1

Our first study examined the impact of task duration salience on immediate task engagement. Participants were instructed to review a detailed data policy and provide consent—a task consumers might often delay because it lacks immediate gratification—within a four-day window. Participants in the duration salient condition group were informed the task would take approximately 2.5 minutes, while a control group was not provided the task duration estimate.

Results showed that 46% of participants in the duration salient group delayed the focal task, while 63% of those in the control group (who did not know the task duration) delayed the task. Additionally, more people in the duration salient condition completed the focal task (85%) than those in control (79%). Study 1 demonstrates that considering task duration decreases task delay and increases overall task completion in a realistic context.

Study 2

Our second study examined a broader application of task duration salience and its effects across tasks of various lengths and contexts. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three scenarios, all featuring a task that was being postponed. For example, one group was assigned a dentist scenario, where they remembered they needed to schedule a dentist appointment but postponed doing so because they didn’t like going to the dentist. Those in the duration salient condition group received a task duration estimate (10 minutes, 20 minutes, or 60 minutes, depending on the scenario), while those in the control group did not. After reading the scenario, participants were indicated how likely they were to further delay the task. 

Consistent with Study 1, these results demonstrated that making task duration salient reduced the likelihood of delaying tasks, regardless of task type. Even for the 60-minute task, participants were less likely to postpone it when informed of the specific time requirement. This suggests that the effectiveness of task duration salience extends beyond brief tasks and can also apply to activities that require a moderate time commitment.

Study 3

Our third study investigated the psychological mechanism underlying the effectiveness of task duration salience. In this study, participants were instructed to imagine they had been putting off making a doctor’s appointment due to undesirability of the task, even though they had been experiencing some pain. Those in the task duration salient group were told that the call should take 10 minutes, while participants in the control group were not given information on task duration. Following this prompt, we measured likelihood of task delay and strength of the implemental mindset.

The results showed that task duration salience not only reduced procrastination but also strengthened the implemental mindset. Our results showed that the implemental mindset played a key role in reducing procrastination, while the deliberative mindset had no significant effect. To rule out the possibility that the effect was driven merely by providing task duration information, we conducted a follow-up study using a restaurant reservation scenario. In this study, participants in the duration-salient condition were asked to estimate how long the task would take before indicating how likely they were to delay it. In the control condition, participants provided the duration estimate only after reporting their likelihood of delaying the task. We found that those who estimated the task duration upfront were significantly less likely to postpone it, further supporting the role of duration salience in reducing procrastination.

Study 4

Our fourth study examined how the presentation of the task duration impacted task delay. In this study, participants imagined they would receive a $5 store voucher for giving an online review—another task that customers generally postpone. The control group received no task duration. For other participants, the duration was consistently three minutes but presented in one of three formats: as "three minutes," as "179,996 milliseconds," or as "0.21% of a day." 

The results showed that task duration salience only decreased procrastination when presented in a clear and understandable format, as “three minutes”. Participants who received duration information in unconventional or abstract ways—milliseconds or percentage of a day—were less able to evaluate its meaning, which reduced the effectiveness of task duration salience.

Real Estate Implications

Overall, providing task duration is a simple yet effective strategy to reduce task delay. Our research demonstrates that task duration consideration strengthens an implemental mindset, which in turn reduces task delay. However, this effect weakens when the duration is presented in an abstract or unclear format. While some theories suggest that procrastination stems from overly optimistic time estimates—particularly regarding the time remaining until a deadline—our findings point to a different pattern: people often overlook task duration itself when deciding whether to delay a task.

Our findings are especially applicable to real estate agents, who often rely on others to move forward in the home buying or selling process. Agents can use our easy, evidence-based strategies to help clients overcome decision paralysis and reduce delays. For instance, instead of a vague prompt, an agent might say, “Scheduling a visit takes just 2 minutes—just let me know your preferred time.”

The real estate process can feel overwhelming, causing clients to procrastinate on even small steps. By clearly indicating how long a specific task will take—such as reading an offer letter—agents can make these actions feel more manageable and encourage follow-through. However, it's important to avoid abstract expressions like “0.21% of the month” when describing time. Though intended to highlight task brevity, such phrasing may confuse clients and reduce the intended motivating effect.

By presenting task duration in a clear and concrete way, agents can help clients take timely action, ultimately leading to smoother transactions and a more efficient business process.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Recommended Reading 

Chun, Libby YoungJin, Christophe Lembregts, and Bram Van den Bergh (2023), “Mind Over Minutes: The Effect of Task Duration Consideration on Task Delay,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 34(3), 502-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1390

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References

1. Ferrari, Joseph R. and Thomas P. Tibbett (2020), “Procrastination,” In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_2272

2. Edú-Valsania, Sergio, Ana Laguía, and Juan A. Moriano (2022), “Burnout: A Review of Theory and Measurement,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1780.

3. Sirois, Fuschia M. (2023), “Procrastination and Stress: A Conceptual Review of Why Context Matters,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), 5031.

4. Fredrickson, Barbara L. and Daniel Kahneman (1993), “Duration Neglect in Retrospective Evaluations of Affective Episodes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 45.

5. Gollwitzer, Peter M. (1990), “Action Phases and Mind-Sets,” Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, 2, 53-92.

6. Gollwitzer, Peter M. (2012), “Mindset Theory of Action Phases,” In Van Lange, Paul A. M., Arie W. Kruglanski, and E. Tory Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1, 526-545.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

About the Authors

Libby YoungJin Chun, PhD
Assistant Professor, Universidad Carlos III Madrid (Spain) 
Dr. Libby YoungJin Chun (PhD – Erasmus University Rotterdam) is a consumer researcher with expertise at the intersection of marketing and psychology. Her research focuses on how people make judgments and decisions, with a particular emphasis on promoting behavioral change. She investigates how individuals perceive and use time in relation to their actions and goals, exploring when and how temporal framing influences motivation and follow-through. Her work also examines the psychological factors that shape people’s choices around media and documentation of personal experiences. Dr. Chun serves as a reviewer for leading academic conferences, including the Society for Consumer Psychology and the Association for Consumer Research.

Christophe Lembregts, PhD 
Associate Professor, Erasmus University Rotterdam (The Netherlands) 
Dr. Christophe Lembregts’ (PhD – Ghent University) research encompasses a diverse range of topics, including consumer responses to numerical information, perceptions of income inequality, strategies for enhancing climate mitigation behaviors, and the psychology of procrastination. He is published in the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Marketing Research, International Journal of Research in Marketing, and Journal of Economic Psychology, among others. Dr. Lembregts also serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Consumer Research and Journal of Consumer Psychology. He is the recipient of various grants such as a FWO doctoral grant from the Belgian government and a NWO Veni grant from the Dutch government.  

Bram Van den Bergh, PhD 
Professor of Behavioral Science, Erasmus University Rotterdam (The Netherlands) 
Dr. Bram Van den Bergh (PhD – KU Leuven Belgium) studies how people make decisions. Using frameworks borrowed from psychology, economics, and biology, he attempts to uncover the fundamental drivers of our behavior. He is published in the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Marketing and Marketing Science, among others. Dr. Van den Bergh is a member of the editorial review board of the Journal of Consumer Researchand currently serves as Associate Editor for the Journal of Consumer Psychology and International Journal of Research in Marketing. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Download this Article

KCRR 2025 September  - KCRR 2025 Sept - The Power of Duration in Reducing Task Delays (Chun).pdf