Close
today i learned (til)

Procrastination Reflection

April 26, 2026

Have you ever questioned yourself why it felt so natural to delay things that need to be done? This happens to everyone at all ages. Children want to finish chores later. Adults want to put off cleaning the houses in the next few days instead. Most, if not all, people have done something similar. In particular, it’s the most obvious for students. For example, it’s me. Since Spring break, I have been completing tasks very near the end of the deadlines. Eventually, I ran out of time for the charged articles that I put off until the last week before finals. As I’m writing this article, I was very confident this is the consequence of “procrastination” (which I am not exactly happy about). Or perhaps it wasn’t just procrastination?

 

What Exactly is Procrastination?

According to educators Ramadhani and others, procrastination is defined as “the tendency to delay important tasks despite knowing the negative consequences” (Ramadhani et al., 2026). It is an occurrence where people delay doing what they want to do or what they have to do by a certain deadline, potentially leading to loss of productivity, poor performance, and increased stress (Rad et al., 2025). Psychology Today, the world’s largest mental health and behavioral science destination online, added to the definition that procrastinators may deliberately look for distractions and it tends to reflect a person’s struggles with self-control. These definitions explain what happened to me.

 

What Leads to Procrastination?

Students procrastinate for different reasons. Based on 27 studies, procrastination might be contributed by fear of failure, perfectionism, test anxiety, low motivation, and difficulties with emotional regulation (Ramadhani et al., 2026). In a different study in Iran, procrastination is a behavior observed in 80-95% of the 290 students (Rad et al., 2025). The study concluded that academic procrastination is correlated with academic self-efficacy and emotional regulation. Students who had better academic self-efficacy show less academic procrastination, and vice versa for those who had problems regulating their emotions. Other reasons include we do not enjoy doing the tasks, want to avoid making ourselves unhappy, or we fear that we won’t do them well (“Psychology Today”, n.d). In contrast, I found these hard to apply on myself. During my first year in college, I experienced all these feelings, yet I don’t think procrastination occurred to me until later semesters. This made me wonder whether submitting assignments just minutes or seconds before the deadline had given me the impression that I was doing things “right” under pressure.

Others suggested that procrastinators believe they perform better under pressure. However, research shows otherwise; instead, procrastinators form “habit of last-minute work to experience the rush of euphoria at seemingly having overcome the odds.” (“Psychology Today”, n.d) This is true on a personal level as I convinced myself the same thing. 

 

Why is It Not Just Procrastination?

What happens when there are too many tasks at hand? We make a priority queue (CS joke). Clémence Prosen, a French educator and creative worker, believed it is not procrastinating when a person chose to prioritize certain tasks, rest, and finish all those delayed tasks later (2021). This is true for Georgia Tech students. I have heard how students taking too many classes weigh their coursework and prioritize some over the others. For example, if one project is worth 10% in a course and a homework assignment worth 5% in a different course due the same night, students prioritize the first one. However, if they need a better grade in the second class, the latter might be prioritized. This ends up with basically sacrificing those with low priority. Unless, they are perfectionists and want to keep both.  

Historically, I used to work on my assignment over the breaks to have an easier time with deadlines. However, over the last Spring break, I made the decision to not work on my coursework, believing I will have enough time for them. I ended up catching up with deadlines as soon as we came back to school. Everything would have been fine if not for more tasks to come up unexpectedly outside of schoolwork. So, a cycle began. I have to catch up on delayed tasks in the queue. According to Psychology Today, “habitual procrastinators can experience reduced well-being in the form of insomnia or immune system and gastrointestinal disturbance.” Those late-night sleeps catch up and tire me out, causing my body to seek rest. Then, as I took my sweet time to rest (or eventually being distracted), the next tasks are due. It is worse when I try to perfect those works (draw it versus using a pre-existing image) and end up spending too much time on one assignment. This puts a strain on my body, leading to me needing even more time to rest. 

 

Personal Reflection

I figured the reason was due to my change in responsibilities in recent semesters. Procrastination with or without the priority queue wasn’t a problem before when my other responsibilities have a fixed schedule. Now, I cannot predict my schedule for next week. My rest time might have taken more time than needed as I got too comfortable with delaying work at a reasonable pace. Changes are needed to my time management and bad habits on account of these unexpected tasks.  Hopefully I can work this out over the summer and you will not see another procrastination reflection in the next few months. Finally, I have found a few strategies that might keep me going forward:

  1. Set soft deadlines a day before the real one (or even earlier for time-consuming projects)
  2. Use time-block for coursework periods with limited access to distracting sources
  3. Allow daily daily buffer time for unpredictable responsibilities outside of coursework

 

References:

Hassan, M. M. (n.d.). Time Management. Public Domain Pictures. Retrieved 2026, from https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/view-image.php?image=613653&picture=time-management.

Prosen, C. (2021, February 3). Resting or procrastinating? that is the question. Clémence Prosen. https://www.clemenceprosen.com/post/resting-or-procrastinating?srsltid=AfmBOorvKggPmnD-5vCd8JBgnmNg09V8y7uZvyOMvY4vBrSrSOk3eoac

Rad, H. F., Bordbar, S., Bahmaei, J., Vejdani, M., & Yusefi, A. R. (2025). Predicting academic procrastination of students based on academic self-efficacy and emotional regulation difficulties. Scientific Reports, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-87664-7

Ramadhani, E., Setiyosari, P., Indreswari, H., Setiyowati, A. J., & Putri, R. D. (2026). Academic procrastination: A systematic review of causal factors and interventions. Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy, 36(1), 100552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbct.2025.100552

Sussex Publishers. (n.d.). Procrastination. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/procrastination

 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Why You Shouldn’t Go To Bed at 4 AM
today i learned (til)
Why did so many people not comply with evidence – based guidelines and precautions set during the Pandemic? Science implies that it may be due to Mirror Neurons!
daguerreotype of junius booth, an actor, in theatrical clothing
today i learned (til)
Daguerreo-what? The Chemistry Behind Early Photography!
today i learned (til)
Hidden Figures Beyond: Alexa Canady, the First African-American Neurosurgeon

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.