A fresh set of experiments suggests the urge to finish sub‑tasks immediately — known as precrastination — is real but fragile: people will grab and complete a near task even when it means extra effort, but only while that extra cost stays small. The new paper replicated the original “bucket” finding and then showed that increasing physical effort and travel distance progressively eliminates the effect, while a standard measure of impulsivity did not predict who precrastinates. The work sharpens our understanding of why people sometimes hurry to “tick off” small chores, with implications for decision making, workplace design and mental health in Thailand and beyond (BPS Research Digest summary).
Precrastination first entered the public eye after a 2014 study found many participants chose the closer of two buckets even though it forced them to carry it further to a goal — an apparently irrational preference explained by the researchers as a desire to reduce cognitive load by completing a subgoal sooner (Rosenbaum et al., 2014). The new work, led by researchers at St. Lawrence University, set out to test two alternative accounts: that precrastination is driven by trait impulsivity, or that it depends on the physical cost of acting early. The team reports that precrastination is a genuine bias to act at the first available opportunity, but one that disappears when effort or distance become substantial (Fox et al., 2025; summarized in the BPS Research Digest (BPS Research Digest, 2025)).
The study used two linked experiments. In the first, 50 student participants repeated the classic bucket task while also completing a computerized delay‑discounting task, a widely used probe of impulsivity that measures willingness to forego smaller immediate rewards for larger delayed rewards. The bucket effect reappeared — participants “clearly precrastinated” by picking the nearer bucket — but there was no correlation between a person’s delay‑discounting scores and their tendency to precrastinate. In short, the shortcuts to finish something early did not reflect the same individual trait captured by standard impulsivity tests (Fox et al., 2025; summary (BPS Research Digest, 2025)).
The second experiment manipulated the physical demands of the bucket task. Researchers increased path lengths, altered bucket positions and raised bucket weights (with equal weights within each trial) across conditions. Precrastination was robust in the light, short‑distance conditions that mirrored the original 2014 finding. But as carrying distance and weight rose, the tendency to grab the nearer bucket fell away. Only when distances were made about six times longer and buckets increased by roughly eight pounds did participants switch to the more effortful but objectively optimal choice, carrying less total distance. This suggests precrastination is a context‑dependent bias: people prefer to act early when the extra effort is small, but will choose more strategically when costs increase (Fox et al., 2025; summary (BPS Research Digest, 2025)).
These findings refine — rather than refute — the original “to‑do list” explanation. The authors argue that completing a subgoal quickly can reduce cognitive load and the mental burden of pending tasks, creating a pull toward early action. However, the mental relief must be balanced against physical or opportunity costs. The new work quantifies where that balance shifts: when costs rise sufficiently, the drive to finish early is overridden by basic cost‑benefit reasoning. The researchers characterise precrastination as “a bias to make a choice at the first possible opportunity, but only when the effort required to complete the task is low, and the difference between the consequences associated with choosing each option is small” (Fox et al., 2025; summary (BPS Research Digest, 2025)).
The team also highlights comparative evidence that precrastination‑like behaviour occurs in other species, notably pigeons, where animals sometimes opt for options that hasten subgoal completion despite larger or later rewards. Such cross‑species data suggest precrastination cannot be explained solely by human cognitive reflections about “to‑do” lists and may reflect a more general bias toward early commitment under low cost conditions (Scientific American overview of animal work; animal studies compiled (Pre-crastination in pigeons)).
Experts in decision science interpret the new results as useful boundary conditions for precrastination. The absence of a relationship with delay discounting counters a simple impulsivity story. Delay discounting correlates with many forms of impulsive choice, but the literature shows it is not the only route to quick, suboptimal actions — context, perceived effort and task framing also matter (review of delay discounting and impulsive choice). The new paper therefore moves the field from asking “do people always precrastinate?” to “when and why does that bias kick in?” (Fox et al., 2025; summary (BPS Research Digest, 2025)).
For Thailand, the study offers timely questions for workplaces, schools and mental health services. Thai work and family culture often values finishing duties promptly and maintaining appearances of diligence — behaviours reinforced by social expectations and Buddhist ethics that prize conscientiousness and responsible action. That cultural context could amplify the psychological payoffs of finishing small tasks quickly, even at a cost, especially in environments where saving face and meeting others’ expectations matter. At the same time, Thai employers and educators should be aware that an organizational culture that rewards immediate completion of small items may inadvertently increase physical or cognitive wear if the tasks carry hidden costs. The study’s authors note that both the experiments reported were conducted on university students, limiting generalisability, and they call for broader demographic and cross‑cultural work — including in Asian and Thai samples — to test how cultural norms and everyday work patterns shape precrastination (Fox et al., 2025; summary (BPS Research Digest, 2025)).
Public health and educational practitioners in Thailand may also find the distinction between procrastination and precrastination important. While much mental‑health attention has focused on procrastination and its ties to anxiety and depression, precrastination is a different behavioural pattern: it can feel productive (you clear tasks from your mental list) but might increase physical strain, waste time through inefficient sequencing of work, or reduce quality by prioritising quick completion over careful planning. Around 20–30% of adults show chronic procrastination in some surveys, and student populations show variable rates as well; comparing those figures to the prevalence and consequences of precrastination requires new, nationally representative Thai data (BMC Psychology review of procrastination prevalence).
Historically, the psychology of task management has oscillated between views that human decision biases are primarily cognitive (mental shortcuts to reduce load) and views that emphasise motivational or incentive structures. Rosenbaum’s initial 2014 work put cognitive load reduction centre stage, proposing that people hurry to finish subgoals to reduce working‑memory demands (Rosenbaum et al., 2014). The current study keeps that cognitive explanation in play but tempers it with clearer evidence that physical cost and task structure can negate the bias. This fits a long tradition in behavioural science showing that small changes in effort, time or framing can flip choices from “irrational” to “rational” in practical settings.
Looking ahead, the new paper points to several concrete research directions and practical experiments. Researchers should extend the bucket paradigm to older adults, blue‑collar workers, and people from non‑Western cultures to test generalisability. Field experiments in workplaces and schools could test whether changing how tasks are framed (e.g., grouping small tasks together, removing incentives for immediate completion) reduces inefficient precrastination and improves outcomes. Neuroscience work could probe whether the neural signatures of precrastination differ from classic impulsive choice — for instance, whether regions linked to cognitive load and task representation (prefrontal cortex) are more involved than reward‑related circuits tied to immediacy.
For Thai readers seeking practical takeaways, the study suggests three sensible steps. First, be conscious about “micro‑tasks”: ask whether rushing to finish a small item saves genuine time or merely transfers effort to later stages. Second, redesign routines so that small, similar chores are batched; batching increases efficiency by keeping switching costs low and preventing unnecessary early action. Third, when supervising students or staff, reward choices that balance speed with overall efficiency rather than only punishing delay. These small changes respect Thailand’s cultural emphasis on responsibility while reducing the hidden toll of needless extra work.
The authors acknowledge several limitations that temper overgeneralisation. Both experiments used student samples, which tend to be young and relatively homogeneous in education and physical fitness. The bucket paradigm is an intentionally simple laboratory task, and real‑world decisions involve richer information, social consequences and emotional stakes. The researchers also note that comparing human results with animal studies requires care: similar behavioural patterns across species point to broad mechanisms but do not imply identical motives or cognitive representations (Scientific American overview of comparative work; animal studies (Pre-crastination in pigeons).
In short, the mystery of precrastination is less “solved” than carefully constrained. The bias to do something immediately is genuine, repeatable and not simply explained by trait impulsivity. But it is also fragile: when choosing early carries real physical costs or clear differences in outcomes, people switch to more optimal behaviour. For policy makers, educators and employers in Thailand, the implication is practical. Design environments that reduce pointless small decisions, reward efficient sequencing and measure outcomes rather than speed alone. For individual readers, the message is simple: ticking off a small chore can feel good, but pause when the cost of doing it now is more than a momentary convenience — deliberate pacing often wins in the long run.
Read the full research paper (Fox, Khatun & Mooney, 2025) and the British Psychological Society summary (BPS Research Digest, 2025). For background on the original bucket experiments and the idea that subgoal completion can reduce cognitive load, see Rosenbaum and colleagues’ foundational 2014 paper (Rosenbaum et al., 2014). For broader context on impulsivity and delay discounting, consult recent reviews of delay‑discounting research (review).