Fear of Missing Out and Irrational Procrastination in the Mobile Social Media Environment: A Moderated Mediation Analysis

Abstract

This study explored the relationship between Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) and irrational procrastination in a mobile social media environment and its underlying mechanism: the mediating role of cognitive failure. The study was conducted with 817 college students using the FoMO Scale, Irrational Procrastination Scale, Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, and Self-Control Scale. The results showed that (a) FoMO positively predicted irrational procrastination in the mobile social media environment; (b) cognitive failure had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between FoMO and irrational procrastination; and (c) self-control had a moderating effect on the relationship between FoMO and cognitive failure.

Introduction

According to the 45th China Statistical Report on Internet Development, the number of mobile Internet users in China was 897 million in March 2020, accounting for 99.2 percent of all Internet users.¹ It has become a subconscious habit to check one's smartphone, and if this connection cannot be immediately satisfied, many people feel subconsciously or psychologically uncomfortable, uneasy, irritable, or panicky.² Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) has become a common phenomenon in the mobile social media environment.²

Individuals with a higher level of FoMO more easily develop maladaptive social media use behaviors, such as smartphone addiction and phubbing.^3–5 FoMO also affects an individual's sense of pressure,⁶ mental health,⁷ and academic distraction.⁸ In addition, the irrational procrastination has become one of the major problematic behaviors of college students resulting from inappropriate smartphone use.⁹ Procrastination, as a common social phenomenon, is particularly prominent among college students and has a significant negative impact on students' studies, psychological health, and other aspects.¹⁰ So this study focuses on the impact of FoMO on the irrational procrastination of college students and examined the role of cognitive failure and self-control in this process.

FoMO and irrational procrastination

FoMO refers to the pervasive anxiety that occurs when an individual is absent from an event and does not get to experience what they wanted to.⁸ People can obtain information more easily in the network era; however, individuals' FoMO has increased, shifting from the fear of not getting enough information to the FoMO on more information. Previous studies have shown that despite the negative impacts of social networking sites, people continue to visit them, even though they may experience negative emotions due to FoMO.¹¹

Procrastination is a widespread phenomenon that can be divided into trait procrastination and situational procrastination.¹² Some researchers have also divided it into negative and positive procrastination.¹³ Steel¹⁴ defined irrational procrastination as the postponement of an originally planned task, despite the awareness that the delay will have negative consequences. This view is consistent with the premise in neurobiology that long-term intentions are primarily generated by the prefrontal cortex but that these are easily replaced by impulses generated by the limbic system, which is more sensitive to specific stimuli, such as immediate gratification.^15,16 Consequently, the intention to work or study can suddenly change when it is easier and more enjoyable to pursue temptations.¹⁷ In addition, Anderson¹⁸ argued that decision avoidance is different from procrastination, that is, procrastination is primarily considered to be an irrational delay.^14,19,20

According to self-determination theory, FoMO can be understood as insufficient self-regulation resulting from the lack of satisfaction of psychological needs. Individuals with a low level of basic psychological needs satisfaction are more likely to experience FoMO.⁸ Social media can satisfy the psychological needs of individuals and bring them pleasure. Such informational behaviors, which draw people's attention and distract them from their original plans can easily provide instant gratification¹⁷ and then lead to procrastination. In addition, previous studies have shown that trait anxiety significantly predicts procrastination.^21,22

H1: FoMO can positively predict irrational procrastination behavior.

Mediating effect of cognitive failure

FoMO is a risk factor of cognitive failure behaviors: the higher the level of FoMO, the more likely that cognitive failure behaviors will occur, along with greater academic distraction and absent-mindedness.^8,23 Individuals with a high level of FoMO usually pay more attention to what is happening outside their own environments and tend to neglect ongoing activities or tasks.²⁴ Broadbent et al.²⁵ described the concept of cognitive failure as a phenomenon whereby individuals make errors, such as failures of perception, memory, and motor function, in performing simple tasks that they are usually capable of performing in their daily lives. Cognitive failure causes individuals to work and learn less effectively^26,27 and increases procrastination behavior.²⁸

H2: FoMO may have an indirect effect on individual irrational procrastination through the mediating role of cognitive failure.

Self-control as a moderator

Self-control is the ability to persist in long-term goals by resisting internal desires and external temptations.²⁹ The underlying cause of procrastination is a lack of self-regulation, specifically a lack of self-control.^14,30 Procrastinators are more easily attracted by pleasant short-term temptations than given tasks that require self-control.³⁰ For instance, procrastinators' relational needs can often be satisfied by the immediate gratification provided by the use of Facebook.^31,32 Panek³³ found that people with low self-control spent more time using recreational media, such as social networks or watching TV or online videos, and less time doing homework.

Although individuals differ in the degree of FoMO and behavior, FoMO is essentially due to users' dependence on technology, products, and media.² Certain studies have suggested that a low level of self-control predicts a high frequency of smartphone use.^34,35 This suggests that individuals with low self-control will spend more time on their smartphones, which will lead to procrastination behaviors due to the lack of strong self-regulation and FoMO.

In addition, cognitive failure is related to rigor. In the Big Five model of personality, individuals with high rigor have less cognitive failure.³⁶ Since self-control is one of the factors of rigor,³⁷ it can be inferred that individuals who lack self-control will experience more cognitive failures.

H3: Both the direct predictive effect of FoMO on irrational procrastination and the mediating effect of cognitive failure will be moderated by self-control.

In summary, the theoretical model assumed in this study is shown in Figure 1.

FIG. 1.

The theoretical model of the research.

Methods

Sample

The stratified sampling method was used to conduct the questionnaire survey based on school type. A total of 879 questionnaires were distributed to 7 different types of colleges and universities in Hangzhou. Of these, 817 valid questionnaires were returned (92.95 percent validity rate). Among them, 42.1 percent were male students and 57.9 percent were female students; 10.5 percent were junior college students, 78.3 percent were undergraduate students, and 11.2 percent were graduate students; 22.1 percent were in humanities and social science, 18.1 percent were in science, 26.1 percent were in engineering, 18.7 percent were in medical science, 8.8 percent were in agriculture, and 6.2 percent were in art.

Measures

FoMO Scale

The FoMO Scale developed by Przybylski et al.⁸ was used. This scale consists of 10 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale; the higher the score, the higher the degree of FoMO. By exploratory factor analysis, three items with low factor loadings and similar meanings were removed, and adjusted to a two-dimensional structure (missing information, missing situations).

Irrational Procrastination Scale

The Irrational Procrastination Scale developed by Steel¹⁷ was used. It presents a 5-point Likert scale containing nine items; the higher the score, the higher the level of procrastination. By exploratory factor analysis, four items with low factor loadings were removed.

Cognitive Failures Questionnaire

Adapted from Broadbent et al.,²⁵ the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire developed by Zhang³⁸ is scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with 18 items containing the 3 dimensions of attentional failure, memory failure, and motor function failure. The higher the total score, the more cognitive failures there were. One item with a similar meaning was deleted.

Self-Control Scale

The short version of the Self-Control Scale developed by Tangney et al.²⁹ was used. It is scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with 13 questions containing 5 dimensions. The higher the score, the better the individual's self-control. By exploratory factor analysis, one item with low factor loadings was deleted and adjusted to a three-dimensional structure (self-discipline, impulse control, habits and performance).

The Cronbach's alpha coefficients of these measurements were 0.717, 0.749, 0.905, and 0.825, respectively. And, the confirmatory factor analysis proved the good structural validity of all four scales (Table 1).

Table 1.

Fit Indices of Four Research Scales (n = 817)

	χ²/df	GFI	NFI	IFI	RMSEA
FoMO Scale	4.77	0.98	0.94	0.95	0.07
Irrational Procrastination Scale	5.78	0.99	0.97	0.97	0.08
Cognitive Failures Questionnaire	5.66	0.91	0.89	0.91	0.08
Self-Control Scale	4.49	0.96	0.90	0.92	0.07

FoMO, Fear of Missing Out; GFI, goodness of fit index; IFI, incremental fit index; NFI, normed fit index; RMSEA, root-mean-squared error of approximation.

Control and testing of common method biases

To further improve the rigor of the study, the Harman one-way factor analysis was used to test for common method biases before analyzing the data. The results showed that there were nine factors with eigenvalues >1 when unrotated, explaining 57.35 percent of the variance. The amount of variance explained by the first common factor was 25.56 percent, which was less than the critical value of 40 percent. Therefore, there was no serious common method bias in this study.

Results and Analysis

Descriptive and correlation results

The descriptive and correlation results are shown in Table 2. The average score of each research variable was in the middle level. FoMO was significantly positively correlated with irrational procrastination and cognitive failure, while significantly negatively correlated with self-control.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis Between Variables (n = 817)

	M	SD	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
(1) FoMO	2.39	0.61	1
(2) Self-control	3.05	0.60	−0.28^**	1
(3) Cognitive failure	2.75	0.61	0.33^**	−0.58^**	1
(4) Attentional failure	3.01	0.69	0.34^**	−0.65^**	0.83^**	1
(5) Memory failure	2.99	0.77	0.24^**	−0.42^**	0.85^**	0.56^**	1
(6) Motor function failure	2.29	0.72	0.26^**	−0.40^**	0.86^**	0.54^**	0.63^**	1
(7) Irrational procrastination	2.80	0.65	0.14^**	−0.67^**	0.49^**	0.51^**	0.36^**	0.38^**	1

p < 0.01.

SD, standard deviation.

Mediating analysis

In the relationship between FoMO and irrational procrastination, the mediating effect of cognitive failure was tested by Model 4 in the SPSS micro PROCESS,³⁹ with gender and school type as control variables in the test (as shown in Table 3). The positive predictive effect of FoMO on cognitive failure was significant (β = 0.32***), and there was a positive predictive effect of cognitive failure on irrational procrastination (β = 0.48***). The total effect of FoMO on irrational procrastination was significant (β = 0.11**), research hypothesis 1 was supported. When the mediating variables were input, the direct predictive effect of FoMO on irrational procrastination was not significant (β = −0.04). Furthermore, the regression model of the mediating effect of cognitive failure with a bootstrap 95 percent confidence interval between the upper and lower limit did not include 0, indicating the complete mediating effect of cognitive failure. Research Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Table 3.

Mediation Model Test for Cognitive Failure (n = 817)

Regression		Fitting index			Significance of coefficients
Outcome variables	Predictors	R	R ²	F	β	t	LLCI	ULCI
Cognitive failure	Constant	0.37	0.14	42.57^***	0.21	−1.67	−0.46	0.04
	Gender				0.27	4.03^***	0.14	0.40
	School type				−0.10	−3.01^***	−0.16	−0.03
	FoMO				0.32	9.58^***	0.25	0.38
Irrational procrastination	Constant	0.51	0.26	72.36^***	0.04	0.38	−0.19	0.28
	Gender				0.14	2.33^**	0.02	0.26
	School type				−0.13	−4.22^***	−0.19	−0.07
	FoMO				−0.04	−1.21	−0.10	0.02
	Cognitive failure				0.48	14.73^***	0.41	0.54

	Effect	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Total effect	0.11^**	0.03	0.04	0.18
Direct effect	−0.04	0.03	−0.10	0.02
Indirect effect	0.15^**	0.02	0.11	0.19

Note: The research variables in the regression equations were all standardized.

p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

LLCI, lower limit confidence interval; SE, standard error; ULCI, upper limit confidence interval.

Moderated mediation effect analysis

The moderating effect of self-control was also tested with SPSS micro PROCESS, using Model 8. Gender and school type were included as control variables in the test. As shown in Table 4, after inputting self-control in the model, the product term of FoMO and self-control was a significant predictor of cognitive failure (β = 0.06*) and a nonsignificant predictor of irrational procrastination (β = 0.04). This indicates that self-control moderates only the predictive effect of FoMO on cognitive failure in the mediated model but cannot moderate the predictive effect of FoMO on irrational procrastination.

Table 4.

Moderated Mediation Model Test (n = 817)

Regression		Fitting index			Significance of coefficients
Outcome variables	Predictors	R	R ²	F	β	t	LLCI	ULCI
Cognitive failure	Constant	0.61	0.38	97.79^***	−0.24	−2.22^*	−0.45	−0.03
	Gender				0.18	3.21^**	0.07	0.29
	School type				−0.01	−0.50	−0.07	0.04
	FoMO				0.19	6.49^***	0.13	0.25
	Self-control				−0.51	−17.09^***	−0.57	−0.45
	Int				0.06	2.17^*	0.01	0.11
Irrational procrastination	Constant	0.69	0.47	122.07^***	−0.06	−0.57	−0.25	0.14
	Gender				0.13	2.48^*	0.03	0.23
	School type				−0.06	−2.50^*	−0.12	−0.01
	FoMO				−0.08	−3.09^**	−0.14	−0.03
	Self-control				−0.57	−17.83^***	−0.63	−0.50
	Cognitive failure				0.17	5.28^***	0.11	0.23
	Int				0.04	1.62	−0.01	0.08

	Self-control	Effect	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Conditional indirect effect	−1 (M − 1 SD)	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.04
	0 (M)	0.03	0.01	0.02	0.05
	1 (M + 1 SD)	0.04	0.01	0.02	0.07
Conditional direct effect	−1 (M − 1 SD)	−0.12	0.03	−0.19	−0.06
	0 (M)	−0.08	0.03	−0.14	−0.03
	1 (M + 1 SD)	−0.05	0.04	−0.12	0.03

Note: The research variables in regression equations were all standardized. Int = FoMO × self-control.

p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

The results of the simple slope analysis (Fig. 2) showed that individuals with low self-control (M − 1 standard deviation [SD]) had a significant positive predictive effect of FoMO on cognitive failure (β_simple = 0.13, t = 3.57, p < 0.001). However, the positive predictive effect of FoMO on cognitive failure was instead higher for individuals with higher self-control (M + 1 SD) (β_simple = 0.24, t = 6.09, p < 0.001). In addition, the mediating effect of cognitive failure on the relationship between FoMO and irrational procrastination tended to increase at all three levels of self-control (Table 4), that is, for high self-control individuals, FoMO instead led to a more pronounced increase in cognitive failure and produced more irrational procrastination behaviors. Research Hypothesis 3 was partially supported.

FIG. 2.

The moderating effect of self-control in the relationship between FoMO and cognitive failure. FoMO, Fear of Missing Out.

Discussion

FoMO and irrational procrastination

The results of the study show that FoMO in mobile social media environments positively predicts individuals' irrational procrastination behaviors, with a higher level of FoMO leading to more irrational procrastination behaviors. Previous research has shown the negative impact of social media on daily life and productivity to be positively correlated with FoMO.⁴⁰ It can be inferred that FoMO in social media environments causes individuals to rely more on mobile smart terminals, mobile applications, and mobile social platforms and also causes people to overuse social networks.^7,8,41 In addition, the excessive use of mobile social networks may cause smartphone addiction, and research has shown that smartphone addiction also positively and significantly predicts individuals' procrastination behavior.^42,43

Mediating effect of cognitive failure

It was found that cognitive failure completely mediated the relationship between FoMO and irrational procrastination in mobile social media environments. This supported a previous research finding that cognitive failure is primarily caused by a reduction in attentional control related to anxiety.⁴⁴ Individuals with a high level of FoMO experience more cognitive failure behaviors, which causes them to be less effective in work and learning,²⁶ and procrastination behavior increased.²⁸

The study also found a significant positive association between cognitive failure and irrational procrastination, which was consistent with the findings of Sirois and Tosti⁴⁵ when examining the relationship between procrastination, concentration, and cognitive failure.

Moderating effect of self-control

Self-control moderates the first half of the mediating effect, that is, the relationship between FoMO and cognitive failure. In individuals with high self-control, the direct predictive effect of FoMO on cognitive failure was more significant than in those with low self-control.

Self-control cannot moderate the relationship between FoMO and irrational procrastination in the mediating effect. But previous studies have shown that self-control is a significant predictor of procrastination; the weaker the self-control, the higher the level of procrastination.^46,47

Implications and limitations

The implications of this study are as follows. First, it aims to provide various types of offline social support for college students to reduce their Internet dependence, such as increasing opportunities for extracurricular communication among teachers and students. Second, it showed that we should pay special attention to the online behaviors of students with high levels of self-control because this group is more likely to suffer from cognitive failure due to FoMO. Third, mental health courses should strengthen the guidance for rational online behavior of college students, especially for some emerging online behaviors and psychological phenomena.

There are some limitations in this study. First, this study used a cross-sectional research design, and it was impossible to use causal inference for the findings. Second, this study only explored the moderating effect of self-control.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

The funding was supported by the Key Project of Humanities and Social Sciences of Ministry of Education of China: Strategy for Developing Humanities and Social Sciences in Chinese Universities towards 2035 [18JZD056].

References

China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). (2020) Statistical report on the development of China's Internet in 2020. www.cac.gov.cn/2020–04/27/c_1589535470378587.htm (accessed May 31, 2021).

Zhao

, Zhang

, Song

. A review and prospect of research on users' fear of missing out (FoMO) in mobile social media environment. Library Intelligence Work, 2017; 61:133–144.

Billieux

, Maurage

, Lopez-Fernandez

, et al. Can disordered mobile phone use be considered a behavioral addiction? An update on current evidence and a comprehensive model for future research. Current Addiction Reports, 2015; 2:156–162.

Elhai

, Levine

, Dvorak

, et al. Fear of missing out, need for touch, anxiety and depression are related to problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 63:509–516.

Chotpitayasunondh

, Douglas

. How “phubbing” becomes the norm: the antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 63:9–18.

Beyens

, Frison

, Eggermont

. “I don't want to miss a thing”: adolescents' fear of missing out and its relationship to adolescents' social needs, Facebook use, and Facebook related stress. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 64:1–8.

Buglass

, Binder

, Betts

, et al. Motivators of online vulnerability: the impact of social network site use and FOMO. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017; 66:248–255.

Przybylski

, Murayama

, DeHaan

, et al. Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013; 29:1841–1848.

Rozgonjuk

, Kattago

, Taht

. Social media use in lectures mediates the relationship between procrastination and problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018; 89:191–198.

10.

Gao

, Fan

, Sun

, et al. The relationship between self-leadership and procrastination behavior among college students. China Journal of Health Psychology 2021.

11.

Fox

, Moreland

. The dark side of social networking sites: an exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 45:168–176.

12.

Ellis

, Knaus

. Overcoming procrastination. Institute for Rational Living, 1977; 8:2–7.

13.

Chu

, Choi

. Rethinking procrastination: positive effects of “active” procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2005; 145:245–264.

14.

Steel

. The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 2007; 133:65–94.

15.

Kahneman

. Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 2003; 93:1449–1475.

16.

McClure

, Ericson

, Laibson

, et al. Time discounting for primary rewards. Journal of Neuroscience, 2007; 27:5796–5804.

17.

Steel

. Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: do they exist?. Personality and Individual Differences, 2010; 48:926–934.

18.

Anderson

. The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 2003; 129:139–167.

19.

Andreou

. Understanding procrastination. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2007; 37:183–193.

20.

Simpson

, Pychyl

. (2009) In search of the arousal procrastinator: investigating the relation between procrastination, arousal-based personality traits and beliefs about procrastination motivations. Paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association Conference, Montreal, Quebec.

21.

Geng

, Hou

, Yang

, et al. The relationship between trait anxiety and college students' procrastination behavior: a moderated-mediation model. Psychological and Behavioral Research, 2019; 17:402–407.

22.

Zhang

, Chen

, Xu

, et al. The overlapping region in right hippocampus accounting for the link between trait anxiety and procrastination. Neuropsychologia, 2020; 146. DOI: 10.1016/J.NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2020.107571.

23.

Zhang

, Li

, Yu

. The relationship between fear of missing out and cognitive failure among college students: the mediating role of mobile social media dependence. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2020; 28:67–70, 81.

24.

Jankowski

, Bąk

. Mindfulness as a mediator of the relationship between trait anxiety, attentional control and cognitive failures. A multimodel inference approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 2019; 142:62–71.

25.

Broadbent

, Cooper

, Fitzgerald

, et al. The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1982; 21:1–16.

26.

Lapierre

, Hammer

, Truxillo

, et al. Family interference with work and workplace cognitive failure: the mitigating role of recovery experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2012; 81:227–235.

27.

Unsworth

, Mcmillan

, Brewer

, et al. Everyday attention failures: an individual differences investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 2012; 38:1765–1772.

28.

Sirois

. Absorbed in the moment? An investigation of procrastination, absorption and cognitive failures. Personality and Individual Differences, 2014; 71:30–34.

29.

Tangney

, Baumeister

, Boone

. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 2004; 72:271–324.

30.

Reinecke

, Oliver

. The Routledge Handbook of Media Use and Well-Being. New York: Routledge. 2016; 170–182.

31.

Reinecke

, Vorderer

, Knop

. Entertainment 2.0? The role of intrinsic and extrinsic need satisfaction for the enjoyment of Facebook use. Journal of Communication, 2014; 64:417–438.

32.

Sheldon

, Abad

, Hinsch

. A two-process view of Facebook use and relatedness need-satisfaction: disconnection drives use, and connection rewards it. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011; 100:766–775.

33.

Panek

. Left to their own devices: college students' “guilty pleasure” media use and time management. Communication Research, 2014; 41:561–577.

34.

Berger

, Wyss

, Knoch

. Low self-control capacity is associated with immediate responses to smartphone signals. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018; 86:45–51.

35.

Wilmer

, Chein

. Mobile technology habits: patterns of association among device usage, intertemporal preference, impulse control, and reward sensitivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2016; 23:1607–1614.

36.

Sutin

, Aschwanden

, Stephan

, et al. Five Factor Model personality traits and subjective cognitive failures. Personality and Individual Differences, 2020; 155:1–7.

37.

Roberts

, Chernyshenko

, Stark

, et al. The structure of conscientiousness an empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 2005; 58:103–139.

38.

Zhang

. (2013). The development of a cognitive failures questionnaire for college students. Master's thesis, Southwest University.

39.

Hayes

. (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

40.

Rozgonjuk

, Sindermann

, Elhai

, et al. Fear of missing out (FoMO) and social media's impact on daily-life and productivity at work: do WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat use disorders mediate that association?. Addictive Behaviors, 2020; 110. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106487.

41.

Lai

, Altavilla

, Ronconi

, et al. Fear of missing out (FOMO) is associated with activation of the right middle temporal gyrus during inclusion social cue. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 61:516–521.

42.

, Gao

, Xu

. The mediating and buffering effect of academic self-efficacy on the relationship between smartphone addiction and academic procrastination. Computers & Education,, 2020; 159. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104001.

43.

Lian

, Liu

, Sun

, et al. The relationship between cellphone addiction and college students' procrastination behavior: a moderated-mediation analysis. Psychological Development and Education, 2018; 34:595–604.

44.

Unsworth

, Brewer

, Spillers

. Variation in cognitive failures: an individual differences investigation of everyday attention and memory failures. Journal of Memory and Language, 2012; 67:1–16.

45.

Sirois

, Tosti

. Lost in the moment? An investigation of procrastination, mindfulness, and well-being. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 2012; 30:237–248.

46.

Kim

, Hong

, Lee

, et al. Effects of time perspective and self-control on procrastination and Internet addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2017; 6:229–236.

47.

Zhao

, Meng

, Sun

, et al. The relationship between self-control and procrastination based on the self-regulation theory perspective: the moderated mediation model. Current Psychology, 2019; 7. DOI: 10.1007/s12144-019-00442-3.