People who received unwelcome information about a task were more likely to later expect it to be easier when they were not reminded of that information, a controlled experiment has found. The more optimistic belief was then linked to doing less work early.
The study, published in Management Science, examines one possible driver of procrastination: motivated memory. Rather than simply overlooking a task, people may be more likely to let an unpleasant estimate of its scope fade because a more optimistic view feels easier to hold.
It is a narrow finding from an online research setting, not a diagnosis for anyone who postpones work. But it offers employers and workers a more specific question than whether somebody is lazy or poorly organised: are they making plans with a realistic picture of the work ahead?
A four-week task with uncertain scope
Charlotte Cordes of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Jana Friedrichsen of Kiel University and Simeon Schudy of Ulm University ran a longitudinal experiment over four weeks. Participants completed a time-consuming transcription task across three sessions, two weeks apart.
The total number of tasks each person would have to complete was initially uncertain. After the first session, participants received a signal about whether their workload was likely to be low or high. Some were reminded of that signal before later decisions, while others were not.
Among participants who had received a negative signal, those given more scope to rely on memory were more likely to believe they faced a low workload. The paper found no equivalent effect after positive news.
Optimism was followed by delay
The researchers report that a ten-percentage-point increase in a person’s belief that their workload would be low was associated with 7% fewer tasks completed at the second session. It was also associated with an 18% lower likelihood of completing the maximum available amount early.
In the experiment, that pattern meant difficult information could affect behaviour twice: first through what participants later believed, then through how much work they chose to leave for the future.
The result does not mean every delay at work reflects motivated forgetting. Competing priorities, unclear ownership, fatigue and workload all matter. It also does not show that a digital reminder will solve procrastination in every job.
What a reminder can and cannot do
The study suggests that reminders can matter when people are planning a task whose scale is uncertain. A project board, a short written estimate or a review of completed work may make it harder to replace an unwelcome fact with a more convenient assumption.
That is different from adding more alerts. A reminder is useful only if it restores information that changes a decision. Repeated notifications that do not clarify the task can become another source of distraction.
Managers should also avoid treating procrastination as the opposite of being busy. Employees may postpone a difficult piece of work while still responding to messages, attending meetings and completing easier tasks. Our report on workplace rustout looks at a separate problem: work that keeps people occupied while leaving their skills underused.
Useful limits on the finding
The analysis is based on a controlled task rather than ordinary office work, and the final sample was 367 people recruited from student pools in Munich and Berlin. The experiment is valuable because it can isolate a mechanism, but it cannot establish how often that mechanism explains delays in every workplace or profession.
It also does not excuse missed commitments. Its value is practical: if people underestimate the task they are avoiding, clearer records of what remains may improve planning before deadlines become urgent.
The full paper, “Motivated Procrastination” in Management Science, was published online on 21 September 2026.
