Yan, Nanxi

English

University of Groningen

University of GroningenTaking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastinationYan, NanxiPublished in:Frontiers in PsychologyDOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2023Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Yan, N. (2023). Taking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastination. Frontiers in Psychology, 14,Article 1096617. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 01-01-2026TYPE OpinionPUBLISHED 08 February 2023DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617OPEN ACCESSEDITED BYJun Hirayama,Komatsu University, JapanREVIEWED BYAnja Kühnel,Medical School Berlin, Germany*CORRESPONDENCENanxi Yann.yan@rug.nlSPECIALTY SECTIONThis article was submitted toHealth Psychology,a section of the journalFrontiers in PsychologyRECEIVED 12 November 2022ACCEPTED 27 January 2023PUBLISHED 08 February 2023CITATIONYan N (2023) Taking a paradoxical perspectiveon bedtime procrastination.Front. Psychol. 14:1096617.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617COPYRIGHT© 2023 Yan. This is an open-access articledistributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,distribution or reproduction in other forums ispermitted, provided the original author(s) andthe copyright owner(s) are credited and thatthe original publication in this journal is cited, inaccordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction ispermitted which does not comply with theseterms.Taking a paradoxical perspective onbedtime procrastinationNanxi Yan1,2*1Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen,Netherlands, 2Department of HRM and OB, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen,Groningen, NetherlandsKEYWORDSbedtime procrastination, paradox theory, paradox mindset, sleep, leisure time, leisureactivities, wellbeing1. IntroductionSocietal change driven by technological advancement and the blurring of the lines betweenwork and leisure has resulted in more and more individuals not getting sufficient sleepduring workdays, despite knowing that sleep is critical for mental, emotional, and physicalhealth (Mukherjee et al., 2015). One behavior that gives rise to sleep deprivation is bedtimeprocrastination (Kroese et al., 2014). Bedtime procrastination is the decision to go to bed laterthan intended in the absence of external reasons, such as a night shift or family responsibilities(Kroese et al., 2014). This is a widespread phenomenon in both Western countries such asthe United States and the Netherlands (Kroese et al., 2014, 2016), and many Asian countries(Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, 2020). As a relatively new concept, current research on bedtimeprocrastination mainly focuses on antecedent phenomena (e.g., chronotype, Kuhnel et al., 2018)and outcomes (e.g., daytime fatigue, Hill et al., 2022). Fewer studies, however, have examined theprocess of bedtime procrastination. This opinion paper aims to bridge this gap by shedding lighton how a paradoxical perspective can shape the process of dealing with bedtime procrastination.2. The paradoxical tension between leisure and healthpursuits in bedtime procrastinationParadoxes are “contradictory, yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persistover time” (Smith and Lewis, 2011, p. 382) [sic]. At the core of the paradox perspectiveis the notion that tension is embedded and, thus, embracing contradictory and interrelateddemands simultaneously is vital for success (Smith and Lewis, 2011). This perspective hasbeen used to examine a wide range of phenomena, such as managing artificial intelligencein organizations (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021) and competing for organizational identities(Ashforth and Reingen, 2014). Nevertheless, research adopting the paradox perspective oftenfocuses on tensions operating at the organizational level; it is relatively less studied in terms ofindividual behavior (Zheng et al., 2018), including health behavior.With regard to bedtime procrastination, there are two distinct and sometimes competingdemands: leisure and health. Individuals have leisure needs, such as wanting to detach, recover,or socialize, that are important to their wellbeing (Kuykendall et al., 2015). However, engaging inleisure activities during late-night hours can be incompatible with health goals. This is becausedelaying sleeping for leisure activities can trigger cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), whereina discrepancy between “what I want to do” (e.g., surfing the internet, hedonic values) and “what IFrontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.orgYan 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617am expected to do” (e.g., sleep hygiene, sufficient recovery) isexperienced. This form of attitude-behavior disconnect can causenegative emotions in individuals. The tension between leisure andhealth can also be explained by resource (i.e., time) conflicts (Riedigerand Freund, 2004), in which individuals want to satisfy both hedonicor leisure needs and health needs at the same time, but one comes atthe expense of the other, and they compete for the same time resource.3. The paradox mindset plays a role indealing with the tensionTo deal with tension, research suggests that individualsfirst attempt to understand or appraise the experience beforeemploying coping strategies (Lazarus, 1991). A mindset refersto a framework or lens that can help people interpret theirexperiences (Dweck, 2006), thus providing them with a meta-theoretical perspective to deal with tension (Schad et al., 2016).Drawing on the paradox literature, individuals might adopt adilemma mindset or a paradox mindset to cope with tension.Individuals with a dilemma mindset may only perceive bedtimeprocrastination as a threat and opt for the “either/or” strategy,such as goal prioritization, which includes goal shelving (Mayerand Freund, 2022). This is because people prefer consistencyin their beliefs and attitudes, and a dilemma mindset, whichhighlights contradictions, can cause anxiety. However, suppressingeither leisure or sleep needs might exacerbate the negativeconsequences caused by resource depletion (Vince and Broussine,1996).In contrast, individuals with a paradox mindset tend to value,accept, and exist in harmony with tension. In other words, ratherthan viewing tension as opposing dichotomies or dilemmas thatnecessitate trade-offs, people with a paradox mindset view tensionas opportunities to organize the complexities of reality and seekstrategies to leverage them to uncover the beneficial outcomes(Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). People with a paradox mindsetmay manage tensions through cognitive flexibility, which broadensthe scope of their attention span and allows them to considerdivergent perspectives on an issue in a more balanced manner(Rothman and Melwani, 2017). A paradox mindset, like expandedcognition, would also foster learning (Smith and Tushman, 2005).The more distinctions people make about different perspectivesor aspects of tension, the more they learn about the tension(or themselves), and the more likely they are to reach a pointof convergence. For example, they may still retain some leisuretime (and shorten it) before sleeping, but they will intentionallyarrange more work breaks during the daytime to satisfy theirleisure needs in a more balanced way. The paradox mindsetmight also enhance recovery self-efficacy—one’s confidence in gettingbenefits from recovery time and opportunities (Sonnentag and Kruel,2006). People with enhanced recovery self-efficacy are better atmaking use of leisure opportunities (e.g., during lunch or othermicro-breaks) throughout the day (Trougakos and Hideg, 2009)and thus do not need to create more leisure opportunities bydelaying their bedtime. Additionally, people with higher recoveryself-efficacy have a larger resource repertoire, which means thata lack of sleep may have less of an impact on their fatiguelevel (Park and Sprung, 2015).4. DiscussionIntegrating research on paradox theory with bedtimeprocrastination, this work postulates that the paradox mindsetis important for facilitating experiencing and responding totension posed by bedtime procrastination, resulting in moreconstructive outcomes. Specifically, with a paradox mindset,people are more likely to embrace rather than avoid bedtimeprocrastination. Accepting both sides of a conflict increasesthe number of ideas and solutions on how to address it.Furthermore, a paradox mindset may enhance individuals’intrinsic motivation (Liu et al., 2020) to deal with bedtimeprocrastination behavior by engaging in agentic behaviors suchas learning, goal-setting, and managing their tension in a morebalanced way. In addition, people’s recovery self-efficacy may alsobe improved.Prior research suggests that mindsets can be learned andimproved through training. For example, an earlier study foundthat the paradox mindset could be learned through livingwith tension (Lomranz and Benyamini, 2016). Interventionstudies that have adopted paradoxical inquiry methods reportedthat managers can be taught to change their experience andapproach to dealing with tension (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008).However, with limited empirical testing, it is unclear whetherthe improvement in mindset can be applied to the context ofbedtime procrastination. To summarize, this opinion paper providesa novel approach to understanding and addressing bedtimeprocrastination. We hope this work can fuel and inspire futureresearch aiming to address bedtime procrastination and otherrelevant health behaviors.Author contributionsThe author confirms being the sole contributor of this work andhas approved it for publication.Conflict of interestThe author declares that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could beconstrued as a potential conflict of interest.Publisher’s noteAll claims expressed in this article are solely those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliatedorganizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers.Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that maybe made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by thepublisher.Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.orgYan 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617ReferencesAshforth, B. E., and Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: managing thedynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Adm. Sci. Q. 59,474–516.Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York,Random House.Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Row. Chantilly: Peterson andCompany. doi: 10.1515/9781503620766Hill, V. M., Rebar, A. L., Ferguson, S. A., and Shriane, A. E. (2022). Go tobed! A systematic review and meta-analysis of bedtime procrastination correlatesand sleep outcomes. Sleep Med. Rev. 66, 101697. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101697Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, R. (2020). Insufficient sleep among adolescents: the roleof bedtime procrastination, chronotype and autonomous vs. controlled motivationalregulations. Current Psychol. 3, 1031–1040. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-9825-7Kroese, F. M., De Ridder, D, and Evers, D. T. C., and Adriaanse, M. A. (2014).Bedtime procrastination: introducing a new area of procrastination. Front Psychol. 5, 611.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00611Kroese, F. M., Evers, C., Adriaanse, M. A., and de Ridder, D. T. (2016). Bedtimeprocrastination: a self-regulation perspective on sleep insufficiency in the generalpopulation. J. Health Psychol. 5, 853–862. doi: 10.1177/1359105314540014Kuhnel, J., Syrek, C. J., and Dreher, A. (2018). Why don’t you go to bed ontime? A daily diary study on the relationships between chronotype, self-controlresources and the phenomenon of bedtime procrastination. Front Psychol. 9, 77.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00077Kuykendall, L., Tay, L., andNg, V. (2015). Leisure engagement and subjective wellbeing:a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 141:2, 364–403. doi: 10.1037/a0038508Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Liu, Y., Xu, S., and Zhang, B. (2020). Thriving at work: how a paradoxmindset influences innovative work behavior. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 3, 347–366.doi: 10.1177/0021886319888267Lomranz, J., and Benyamini, Y. (2016). The ability to live with incongruence:aintegration—the concept and its operationalization. J. Adult Develop. 23:2, 79–92.doi: 10.1007/s10804-015-9223-4Lüscher, L. S., and Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change andmanagerial sensemaking: working through paradox. Acad. Manage. J. 2, 221–240.doi: 10.5465/amj.2008.31767217Mayer, Z., and Freund, A. M. (2022). Better off without? Benefits and costs of resolvinggoal conflict through goal shelving and goal disengagement. Motivation Emotion 46:6,790–805. doi: 10.1007/s11031-022-09966-xMiron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2018).Microfoundations of organizational paradox: the problem is how we think about theproblem. Acad. Manage. J. 1, 26–45. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0594Mukherjee, S., Patel, S. R., Kales, S. N., Ayas, N. T., Strohl, K. P., Gozal, D., et al.(2015). An official american thoracic society statement: the importance of healthysleep. Recommendations and future priorities. Am. J. Respiratory Critical Care Med. 12,1450–1458. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201504-0767STPark, Y., and Sprung, J. M. (2015). Weekly work–school conflict, sleep quality, andfatigue: recovery self-efficacy as a cross-level moderator. J. Organizational Behav. 1,112–127. doi: 10.1002/job.1953Raisch, S., and Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management:the automation–augmentation paradox. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1, 192–210.doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0072Riediger, M., and Freund, A. M. (2004). Interference and facilitation among personalgoals: differential associations with subjective wellbeing and persistent goal pursuit.Personal. Social Psychol. Bull. 12, 1511–1523. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271184Rothman, N. B., and Melwani, S. (2017). Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: thesocial functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2, 259–282.doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0355Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., and Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research inmanagement science: looking back to move forward. Acad. Manage. Annals 1, 5–64.doi: 10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: adynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2, 381–403.doi: 10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958Smith, W. K., and Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: a topmanagement model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. 16, 522–536.Sonnentag, S., and Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological detachment from work during off-job time: the role of job stressors, job involvement, and recovery-related self-efficacy. Eur.J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 2, 197–217. doi: 10.1080/13594320500513939Trougakos, J. P., and Hideg, I. (2009). “Momentary work recovery: the role ofwithin-day work breaks,” in S Sonnentag, PL Perrewé, DC Ganster, eds CurrentPerspectives on Job-Stress Recovery, Vol. 7. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. p. 37–45.doi: 10.1108/S1479-3555(2009)0000007005Vince, R., and Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: accessing andworking with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. OrganizationStud. 1, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/017084069601700101Zheng, W., Kark, R., and Meister, A. L. (2018). Paradox vs. dilemma mindset: a theoryof how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. LeadershipQuarterly, 5, 584–596. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org

Taking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastination

   University of GroningenTaking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastinationYan, NanxiPublished in:Frontiers in PsychologyDOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2023Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Yan, N. (2023). Taking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastination. Frontiers in Psychology, 14,[1096617]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 15-02-2023TYPE OpinionPUBLISHED 08 February 2023DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617OPEN ACCESSEDITED BYJun Hirayama,Komatsu University, JapanREVIEWED BYAnja Kühnel,Medical School Berlin, Germany*CORRESPONDENCENanxi Yann.yan@rug.nlSPECIALTY SECTIONThis article was submitted toHealth Psychology,a section of the journalFrontiers in PsychologyRECEIVED 12 November 2022ACCEPTED 27 January 2023PUBLISHED 08 February 2023CITATIONYan N (2023) Taking a paradoxical perspectiveon bedtime procrastination.Front. Psychol. 14:1096617.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617COPYRIGHT© 2023 Yan. This is an open-access articledistributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,distribution or reproduction in other forums ispermitted, provided the original author(s) andthe copyright owner(s) are credited and thatthe original publication in this journal is cited, inaccordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction ispermitted which does not comply with theseterms.Taking a paradoxical perspective onbedtime procrastinationNanxi Yan1,2*1Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen,Netherlands, 2Department of HRM and OB, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen,Groningen, NetherlandsKEYWORDSbedtime procrastination, paradox theory, paradox mindset, sleep, leisure time, leisureactivities, wellbeing1. IntroductionSocietal change driven by technological advancement and the blurring of the lines betweenwork and leisure has resulted in more and more individuals not getting sufficient sleepduring workdays, despite knowing that sleep is critical for mental, emotional, and physicalhealth (Mukherjee et al., 2015). One behavior that gives rise to sleep deprivation is bedtimeprocrastination (Kroese et al., 2014). Bedtime procrastination is the decision to go to bed laterthan intended in the absence of external reasons, such as a night shift or family responsibilities(Kroese et al., 2014). This is a widespread phenomenon in both Western countries such asthe United States and the Netherlands (Kroese et al., 2014, 2016), and many Asian countries(Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, 2020). As a relatively new concept, current research on bedtimeprocrastination mainly focuses on antecedent phenomena (e.g., chronotype, Kuhnel et al., 2018)and outcomes (e.g., daytime fatigue, Hill et al., 2022). Fewer studies, however, have examined theprocess of bedtime procrastination. This opinion paper aims to bridge this gap by shedding lighton how a paradoxical perspective can shape the process of dealing with bedtime procrastination.2. The paradoxical tension between leisure and healthpursuits in bedtime procrastinationParadoxes are “contradictory, yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persistover time” (Smith and Lewis, 2011, p. 382) [sic]. At the core of the paradox perspectiveis the notion that tension is embedded and, thus, embracing contradictory and interrelateddemands simultaneously is vital for success (Smith and Lewis, 2011). This perspective hasbeen used to examine a wide range of phenomena, such as managing artificial intelligencein organizations (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021) and competing for organizational identities(Ashforth and Reingen, 2014). Nevertheless, research adopting the paradox perspective oftenfocuses on tensions operating at the organizational level; it is relatively less studied in terms ofindividual behavior (Zheng et al., 2018), including health behavior.With regard to bedtime procrastination, there are two distinct and sometimes competingdemands: leisure and health. Individuals have leisure needs, such as wanting to detach, recover,or socialize, that are important to their wellbeing (Kuykendall et al., 2015). However, engaging inleisure activities during late-night hours can be incompatible with health goals. This is becausedelaying sleeping for leisure activities can trigger cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), whereina discrepancy between “what I want to do” (e.g., surfing the internet, hedonic values) and “what IFrontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.orgYan 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617am expected to do” (e.g., sleep hygiene, sufficient recovery) isexperienced. This form of attitude-behavior disconnect can causenegative emotions in individuals. The tension between leisure andhealth can also be explained by resource (i.e., time) conflicts (Riedigerand Freund, 2004), in which individuals want to satisfy both hedonicor leisure needs and health needs at the same time, but one comes atthe expense of the other, and they compete for the same time resource.3. The paradox mindset plays a role indealing with the tensionTo deal with tension, research suggests that individualsfirst attempt to understand or appraise the experience beforeemploying coping strategies (Lazarus, 1991). A mindset refersto a framework or lens that can help people interpret theirexperiences (Dweck, 2006), thus providing them with a meta-theoretical perspective to deal with tension (Schad et al., 2016).Drawing on the paradox literature, individuals might adopt adilemma mindset or a paradox mindset to cope with tension.Individuals with a dilemma mindset may only perceive bedtimeprocrastination as a threat and opt for the “either/or” strategy,such as goal prioritization, which includes goal shelving (Mayerand Freund, 2022). This is because people prefer consistencyin their beliefs and attitudes, and a dilemma mindset, whichhighlights contradictions, can cause anxiety. However, suppressingeither leisure or sleep needs might exacerbate the negativeconsequences caused by resource depletion (Vince and Broussine,1996).In contrast, individuals with a paradox mindset tend to value,accept, and exist in harmony with tension. In other words, ratherthan viewing tension as opposing dichotomies or dilemmas thatnecessitate trade-offs, people with a paradox mindset view tensionas opportunities to organize the complexities of reality and seekstrategies to leverage them to uncover the beneficial outcomes(Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). People with a paradox mindsetmay manage tensions through cognitive flexibility, which broadensthe scope of their attention span and allows them to considerdivergent perspectives on an issue in a more balanced manner(Rothman and Melwani, 2017). A paradox mindset, like expandedcognition, would also foster learning (Smith and Tushman, 2005).The more distinctions people make about different perspectivesor aspects of tension, the more they learn about the tension(or themselves), and the more likely they are to reach a pointof convergence. For example, they may still retain some leisuretime (and shorten it) before sleeping, but they will intentionallyarrange more work breaks during the daytime to satisfy theirleisure needs in a more balanced way. The paradox mindsetmight also enhance recovery self-efficacy—one’s confidence in gettingbenefits from recovery time and opportunities (Sonnentag and Kruel,2006). People with enhanced recovery self-efficacy are better atmaking use of leisure opportunities (e.g., during lunch or othermicro-breaks) throughout the day (Trougakos and Hideg, 2009)and thus do not need to create more leisure opportunities bydelaying their bedtime. Additionally, people with higher recoveryself-efficacy have a larger resource repertoire, which means thata lack of sleep may have less of an impact on their fatiguelevel (Park and Sprung, 2015).4. DiscussionIntegrating research on paradox theory with bedtimeprocrastination, this work postulates that the paradox mindsetis important for facilitating experiencing and responding totension posed by bedtime procrastination, resulting in moreconstructive outcomes. Specifically, with a paradox mindset,people are more likely to embrace rather than avoid bedtimeprocrastination. Accepting both sides of a conflict increasesthe number of ideas and solutions on how to address it.Furthermore, a paradox mindset may enhance individuals’intrinsic motivation (Liu et al., 2020) to deal with bedtimeprocrastination behavior by engaging in agentic behaviors suchas learning, goal-setting, and managing their tension in a morebalanced way. In addition, people’s recovery self-efficacy may alsobe improved.Prior research suggests that mindsets can be learned andimproved through training. For example, an earlier study foundthat the paradox mindset could be learned through livingwith tension (Lomranz and Benyamini, 2016). Interventionstudies that have adopted paradoxical inquiry methods reportedthat managers can be taught to change their experience andapproach to dealing with tension (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008).However, with limited empirical testing, it is unclear whetherthe improvement in mindset can be applied to the context ofbedtime procrastination. To summarize, this opinion paper providesa novel approach to understanding and addressing bedtimeprocrastination. We hope this work can fuel and inspire futureresearch aiming to address bedtime procrastination and otherrelevant health behaviors.Author contributionsThe author confirms being the sole contributor of this work andhas approved it for publication.Conflict of interestThe author declares that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could beconstrued as a potential conflict of interest.Publisher’s noteAll claims expressed in this article are solely those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliatedorganizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers.Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that maybe made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by thepublisher.Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.orgYan 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617ReferencesAshforth, B. E., and Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: managing thedynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Adm. Sci. Q. 59,474–516.Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York,Random House.Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Row. Chantilly: Peterson andCompany. doi: 10.1515/9781503620766Hill, V. M., Rebar, A. L., Ferguson, S. A., and Shriane, A. E. (2022). Go tobed! A systematic review and meta-analysis of bedtime procrastination correlatesand sleep outcomes. Sleep Med. Rev. 66, 101697. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101697Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, R. (2020). Insufficient sleep among adolescents: the roleof bedtime procrastination, chronotype and autonomous vs. controlled motivationalregulations. Current Psychol. 3, 1031–1040. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-9825-7Kroese, F. M., De Ridder, D, and Evers, D. T. C., and Adriaanse, M. A. (2014).Bedtime procrastination: introducing a new area of procrastination. Front Psychol. 5, 611.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00611Kroese, F. M., Evers, C., Adriaanse, M. A., and de Ridder, D. T. (2016). Bedtimeprocrastination: a self-regulation perspective on sleep insufficiency in the generalpopulation. J. Health Psychol. 5, 853–862. doi: 10.1177/1359105314540014Kuhnel, J., Syrek, C. J., and Dreher, A. (2018). Why don’t you go to bed ontime? A daily diary study on the relationships between chronotype, self-controlresources and the phenomenon of bedtime procrastination. Front Psychol. 9, 77.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00077Kuykendall, L., Tay, L., andNg, V. (2015). Leisure engagement and subjective wellbeing:a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 141:2, 364–403. doi: 10.1037/a0038508Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Liu, Y., Xu, S., and Zhang, B. (2020). Thriving at work: how a paradoxmindset influences innovative work behavior. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 3, 347–366.doi: 10.1177/0021886319888267Lomranz, J., and Benyamini, Y. (2016). The ability to live with incongruence:aintegration—the concept and its operationalization. J. Adult Develop. 23:2, 79–92.doi: 10.1007/s10804-015-9223-4Lüscher, L. S., and Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change andmanagerial sensemaking: working through paradox. Acad. Manage. J. 2, 221–240.doi: 10.5465/amj.2008.31767217Mayer, Z., and Freund, A. M. (2022). Better off without? Benefits and costs of resolvinggoal conflict through goal shelving and goal disengagement. Motivation Emotion 46:6,790–805. doi: 10.1007/s11031-022-09966-xMiron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2018).Microfoundations of organizational paradox: the problem is how we think about theproblem. Acad. Manage. J. 1, 26–45. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0594Mukherjee, S., Patel, S. R., Kales, S. N., Ayas, N. T., Strohl, K. P., Gozal, D., et al.(2015). An official american thoracic society statement: the importance of healthysleep. Recommendations and future priorities. Am. J. Respiratory Critical Care Med. 12,1450–1458. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201504-0767STPark, Y., and Sprung, J. M. (2015). Weekly work–school conflict, sleep quality, andfatigue: recovery self-efficacy as a cross-level moderator. J. Organizational Behav. 1,112–127. doi: 10.1002/job.1953Raisch, S., and Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management:the automation–augmentation paradox. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1, 192–210.doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0072Riediger, M., and Freund, A. M. (2004). Interference and facilitation among personalgoals: differential associations with subjective wellbeing and persistent goal pursuit.Personal. Social Psychol. Bull. 12, 1511–1523. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271184Rothman, N. B., and Melwani, S. (2017). Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: thesocial functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2, 259–282.doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0355Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., and Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research inmanagement science: looking back to move forward. Acad. Manage. Annals 1, 5–64.doi: 10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: adynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2, 381–403.doi: 10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958Smith, W. K., and Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: a topmanagement model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. 16, 522–536.Sonnentag, S., and Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological detachment from work during off-job time: the role of job stressors, job involvement, and recovery-related self-efficacy. Eur.J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 2, 197–217. doi: 10.1080/13594320500513939Trougakos, J. P., and Hideg, I. (2009). “Momentary work recovery: the role ofwithin-day work breaks,” in S Sonnentag, PL Perrewé, DC Ganster, eds CurrentPerspectives on Job-Stress Recovery, Vol. 7. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. p. 37–45.doi: 10.1108/S1479-3555(2009)0000007005Vince, R., and Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: accessing andworking with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. OrganizationStud. 1, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/017084069601700101Zheng, W., Kark, R., and Meister, A. L. (2018). Paradox vs. dilemma mindset: a theoryof how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. LeadershipQuarterly, 5, 584–596. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org

NARCIS 

   University of GroningenTaking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastinationYan, NanxiPublished in:Frontiers in PsychologyDOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2023Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Yan, N. (2023). Taking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastination. Frontiers in Psychology, 14,[1096617]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 30-04-2023TYPE OpinionPUBLISHED 08 February 2023DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617OPEN ACCESSEDITED BYJun Hirayama,Komatsu University, JapanREVIEWED BYAnja Kühnel,Medical School Berlin, Germany*CORRESPONDENCENanxi Yann.yan@rug.nlSPECIALTY SECTIONThis article was submitted toHealth Psychology,a section of the journalFrontiers in PsychologyRECEIVED 12 November 2022ACCEPTED 27 January 2023PUBLISHED 08 February 2023CITATIONYan N (2023) Taking a paradoxical perspectiveon bedtime procrastination.Front. Psychol. 14:1096617.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617COPYRIGHT© 2023 Yan. This is an open-access articledistributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,distribution or reproduction in other forums ispermitted, provided the original author(s) andthe copyright owner(s) are credited and thatthe original publication in this journal is cited, inaccordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction ispermitted which does not comply with theseterms.Taking a paradoxical perspective onbedtime procrastinationNanxi Yan1,2*1Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen,Netherlands, 2Department of HRM and OB, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen,Groningen, NetherlandsKEYWORDSbedtime procrastination, paradox theory, paradox mindset, sleep, leisure time, leisureactivities, wellbeing1. IntroductionSocietal change driven by technological advancement and the blurring of the lines betweenwork and leisure has resulted in more and more individuals not getting sufficient sleepduring workdays, despite knowing that sleep is critical for mental, emotional, and physicalhealth (Mukherjee et al., 2015). One behavior that gives rise to sleep deprivation is bedtimeprocrastination (Kroese et al., 2014). Bedtime procrastination is the decision to go to bed laterthan intended in the absence of external reasons, such as a night shift or family responsibilities(Kroese et al., 2014). This is a widespread phenomenon in both Western countries such asthe United States and the Netherlands (Kroese et al., 2014, 2016), and many Asian countries(Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, 2020). As a relatively new concept, current research on bedtimeprocrastination mainly focuses on antecedent phenomena (e.g., chronotype, Kuhnel et al., 2018)and outcomes (e.g., daytime fatigue, Hill et al., 2022). Fewer studies, however, have examined theprocess of bedtime procrastination. This opinion paper aims to bridge this gap by shedding lighton how a paradoxical perspective can shape the process of dealing with bedtime procrastination.2. The paradoxical tension between leisure and healthpursuits in bedtime procrastinationParadoxes are “contradictory, yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persistover time” (Smith and Lewis, 2011, p. 382) [sic]. At the core of the paradox perspectiveis the notion that tension is embedded and, thus, embracing contradictory and interrelateddemands simultaneously is vital for success (Smith and Lewis, 2011). This perspective hasbeen used to examine a wide range of phenomena, such as managing artificial intelligencein organizations (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021) and competing for organizational identities(Ashforth and Reingen, 2014). Nevertheless, research adopting the paradox perspective oftenfocuses on tensions operating at the organizational level; it is relatively less studied in terms ofindividual behavior (Zheng et al., 2018), including health behavior.With regard to bedtime procrastination, there are two distinct and sometimes competingdemands: leisure and health. Individuals have leisure needs, such as wanting to detach, recover,or socialize, that are important to their wellbeing (Kuykendall et al., 2015). However, engaging inleisure activities during late-night hours can be incompatible with health goals. This is becausedelaying sleeping for leisure activities can trigger cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), whereina discrepancy between “what I want to do” (e.g., surfing the internet, hedonic values) and “what IFrontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.orgYan 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617am expected to do” (e.g., sleep hygiene, sufficient recovery) isexperienced. This form of attitude-behavior disconnect can causenegative emotions in individuals. The tension between leisure andhealth can also be explained by resource (i.e., time) conflicts (Riedigerand Freund, 2004), in which individuals want to satisfy both hedonicor leisure needs and health needs at the same time, but one comes atthe expense of the other, and they compete for the same time resource.3. The paradox mindset plays a role indealing with the tensionTo deal with tension, research suggests that individualsfirst attempt to understand or appraise the experience beforeemploying coping strategies (Lazarus, 1991). A mindset refersto a framework or lens that can help people interpret theirexperiences (Dweck, 2006), thus providing them with a meta-theoretical perspective to deal with tension (Schad et al., 2016).Drawing on the paradox literature, individuals might adopt adilemma mindset or a paradox mindset to cope with tension.Individuals with a dilemma mindset may only perceive bedtimeprocrastination as a threat and opt for the “either/or” strategy,such as goal prioritization, which includes goal shelving (Mayerand Freund, 2022). This is because people prefer consistencyin their beliefs and attitudes, and a dilemma mindset, whichhighlights contradictions, can cause anxiety. However, suppressingeither leisure or sleep needs might exacerbate the negativeconsequences caused by resource depletion (Vince and Broussine,1996).In contrast, individuals with a paradox mindset tend to value,accept, and exist in harmony with tension. In other words, ratherthan viewing tension as opposing dichotomies or dilemmas thatnecessitate trade-offs, people with a paradox mindset view tensionas opportunities to organize the complexities of reality and seekstrategies to leverage them to uncover the beneficial outcomes(Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). People with a paradox mindsetmay manage tensions through cognitive flexibility, which broadensthe scope of their attention span and allows them to considerdivergent perspectives on an issue in a more balanced manner(Rothman and Melwani, 2017). A paradox mindset, like expandedcognition, would also foster learning (Smith and Tushman, 2005).The more distinctions people make about different perspectivesor aspects of tension, the more they learn about the tension(or themselves), and the more likely they are to reach a pointof convergence. For example, they may still retain some leisuretime (and shorten it) before sleeping, but they will intentionallyarrange more work breaks during the daytime to satisfy theirleisure needs in a more balanced way. The paradox mindsetmight also enhance recovery self-efficacy—one’s confidence in gettingbenefits from recovery time and opportunities (Sonnentag and Kruel,2006). People with enhanced recovery self-efficacy are better atmaking use of leisure opportunities (e.g., during lunch or othermicro-breaks) throughout the day (Trougakos and Hideg, 2009)and thus do not need to create more leisure opportunities bydelaying their bedtime. Additionally, people with higher recoveryself-efficacy have a larger resource repertoire, which means thata lack of sleep may have less of an impact on their fatiguelevel (Park and Sprung, 2015).4. DiscussionIntegrating research on paradox theory with bedtimeprocrastination, this work postulates that the paradox mindsetis important for facilitating experiencing and responding totension posed by bedtime procrastination, resulting in moreconstructive outcomes. Specifically, with a paradox mindset,people are more likely to embrace rather than avoid bedtimeprocrastination. Accepting both sides of a conflict increasesthe number of ideas and solutions on how to address it.Furthermore, a paradox mindset may enhance individuals’intrinsic motivation (Liu et al., 2020) to deal with bedtimeprocrastination behavior by engaging in agentic behaviors suchas learning, goal-setting, and managing their tension in a morebalanced way. In addition, people’s recovery self-efficacy may alsobe improved.Prior research suggests that mindsets can be learned andimproved through training. For example, an earlier study foundthat the paradox mindset could be learned through livingwith tension (Lomranz and Benyamini, 2016). Interventionstudies that have adopted paradoxical inquiry methods reportedthat managers can be taught to change their experience andapproach to dealing with tension (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008).However, with limited empirical testing, it is unclear whetherthe improvement in mindset can be applied to the context ofbedtime procrastination. To summarize, this opinion paper providesa novel approach to understanding and addressing bedtimeprocrastination. We hope this work can fuel and inspire futureresearch aiming to address bedtime procrastination and otherrelevant health behaviors.Author contributionsThe author confirms being the sole contributor of this work andhas approved it for publication.Conflict of interestThe author declares that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could beconstrued as a potential conflict of interest.Publisher’s noteAll claims expressed in this article are solely those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliatedorganizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers.Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that maybe made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by thepublisher.Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.orgYan 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617ReferencesAshforth, B. E., and Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: managing thedynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Adm. Sci. Q. 59,474–516.Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York,Random House.Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Row. Chantilly: Peterson andCompany. doi: 10.1515/9781503620766Hill, V. M., Rebar, A. L., Ferguson, S. A., and Shriane, A. E. (2022). Go tobed! A systematic review and meta-analysis of bedtime procrastination correlatesand sleep outcomes. Sleep Med. Rev. 66, 101697. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101697Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, R. (2020). Insufficient sleep among adolescents: the roleof bedtime procrastination, chronotype and autonomous vs. controlled motivationalregulations. Current Psychol. 3, 1031–1040. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-9825-7Kroese, F. M., De Ridder, D, and Evers, D. T. C., and Adriaanse, M. A. (2014).Bedtime procrastination: introducing a new area of procrastination. Front Psychol. 5, 611.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00611Kroese, F. M., Evers, C., Adriaanse, M. A., and de Ridder, D. T. (2016). Bedtimeprocrastination: a self-regulation perspective on sleep insufficiency in the generalpopulation. J. Health Psychol. 5, 853–862. doi: 10.1177/1359105314540014Kuhnel, J., Syrek, C. J., and Dreher, A. (2018). Why don’t you go to bed ontime? A daily diary study on the relationships between chronotype, self-controlresources and the phenomenon of bedtime procrastination. Front Psychol. 9, 77.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00077Kuykendall, L., Tay, L., andNg, V. (2015). Leisure engagement and subjective wellbeing:a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 141:2, 364–403. doi: 10.1037/a0038508Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Liu, Y., Xu, S., and Zhang, B. (2020). Thriving at work: how a paradoxmindset influences innovative work behavior. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 3, 347–366.doi: 10.1177/0021886319888267Lomranz, J., and Benyamini, Y. (2016). The ability to live with incongruence:aintegration—the concept and its operationalization. J. Adult Develop. 23:2, 79–92.doi: 10.1007/s10804-015-9223-4Lüscher, L. S., and Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change andmanagerial sensemaking: working through paradox. Acad. Manage. J. 2, 221–240.doi: 10.5465/amj.2008.31767217Mayer, Z., and Freund, A. M. (2022). Better off without? Benefits and costs of resolvinggoal conflict through goal shelving and goal disengagement. Motivation Emotion 46:6,790–805. doi: 10.1007/s11031-022-09966-xMiron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2018).Microfoundations of organizational paradox: the problem is how we think about theproblem. Acad. Manage. J. 1, 26–45. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0594Mukherjee, S., Patel, S. R., Kales, S. N., Ayas, N. T., Strohl, K. P., Gozal, D., et al.(2015). An official american thoracic society statement: the importance of healthysleep. Recommendations and future priorities. Am. J. Respiratory Critical Care Med. 12,1450–1458. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201504-0767STPark, Y., and Sprung, J. M. (2015). Weekly work–school conflict, sleep quality, andfatigue: recovery self-efficacy as a cross-level moderator. J. Organizational Behav. 1,112–127. doi: 10.1002/job.1953Raisch, S., and Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management:the automation–augmentation paradox. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1, 192–210.doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0072Riediger, M., and Freund, A. M. (2004). Interference and facilitation among personalgoals: differential associations with subjective wellbeing and persistent goal pursuit.Personal. Social Psychol. Bull. 12, 1511–1523. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271184Rothman, N. B., and Melwani, S. (2017). Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: thesocial functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2, 259–282.doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0355Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., and Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research inmanagement science: looking back to move forward. Acad. Manage. Annals 1, 5–64.doi: 10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: adynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2, 381–403.doi: 10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958Smith, W. K., and Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: a topmanagement model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. 16, 522–536.Sonnentag, S., and Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological detachment from work during off-job time: the role of job stressors, job involvement, and recovery-related self-efficacy. Eur.J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 2, 197–217. doi: 10.1080/13594320500513939Trougakos, J. P., and Hideg, I. (2009). “Momentary work recovery: the role ofwithin-day work breaks,” in S Sonnentag, PL Perrewé, DC Ganster, eds CurrentPerspectives on Job-Stress Recovery, Vol. 7. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. p. 37–45.doi: 10.1108/S1479-3555(2009)0000007005Vince, R., and Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: accessing andworking with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. OrganizationStud. 1, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/017084069601700101Zheng, W., Kark, R., and Meister, A. L. (2018). Paradox vs. dilemma mindset: a theoryof how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. LeadershipQuarterly, 5, 584–596. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

   University of GroningenTaking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastinationYan, NanxiPublished in:Frontiers in PsychologyDOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2023Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Yan, N. (2023). Taking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastination. Frontiers in Psychology, 14,Article 1096617. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 12-09-2023TYPE OpinionPUBLISHED 08 February 2023DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617OPEN ACCESSEDITED BYJun Hirayama,Komatsu University, JapanREVIEWED BYAnja Kühnel,Medical School Berlin, Germany*CORRESPONDENCENanxi Yann.yan@rug.nlSPECIALTY SECTIONThis article was submitted toHealth Psychology,a section of the journalFrontiers in PsychologyRECEIVED 12 November 2022ACCEPTED 27 January 2023PUBLISHED 08 February 2023CITATIONYan N (2023) Taking a paradoxical perspectiveon bedtime procrastination.Front. Psychol. 14:1096617.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617COPYRIGHT© 2023 Yan. This is an open-access articledistributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,distribution or reproduction in other forums ispermitted, provided the original author(s) andthe copyright owner(s) are credited and thatthe original publication in this journal is cited, inaccordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction ispermitted which does not comply with theseterms.Taking a paradoxical perspective onbedtime procrastinationNanxi Yan1,2*1Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen,Netherlands, 2Department of HRM and OB, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen,Groningen, NetherlandsKEYWORDSbedtime procrastination, paradox theory, paradox mindset, sleep, leisure time, leisureactivities, wellbeing1. IntroductionSocietal change driven by technological advancement and the blurring of the lines betweenwork and leisure has resulted in more and more individuals not getting sufficient sleepduring workdays, despite knowing that sleep is critical for mental, emotional, and physicalhealth (Mukherjee et al., 2015). One behavior that gives rise to sleep deprivation is bedtimeprocrastination (Kroese et al., 2014). Bedtime procrastination is the decision to go to bed laterthan intended in the absence of external reasons, such as a night shift or family responsibilities(Kroese et al., 2014). This is a widespread phenomenon in both Western countries such asthe United States and the Netherlands (Kroese et al., 2014, 2016), and many Asian countries(Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, 2020). As a relatively new concept, current research on bedtimeprocrastination mainly focuses on antecedent phenomena (e.g., chronotype, Kuhnel et al., 2018)and outcomes (e.g., daytime fatigue, Hill et al., 2022). Fewer studies, however, have examined theprocess of bedtime procrastination. This opinion paper aims to bridge this gap by shedding lighton how a paradoxical perspective can shape the process of dealing with bedtime procrastination.2. The paradoxical tension between leisure and healthpursuits in bedtime procrastinationParadoxes are “contradictory, yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persistover time” (Smith and Lewis, 2011, p. 382) [sic]. At the core of the paradox perspectiveis the notion that tension is embedded and, thus, embracing contradictory and interrelateddemands simultaneously is vital for success (Smith and Lewis, 2011). This perspective hasbeen used to examine a wide range of phenomena, such as managing artificial intelligencein organizations (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021) and competing for organizational identities(Ashforth and Reingen, 2014). Nevertheless, research adopting the paradox perspective oftenfocuses on tensions operating at the organizational level; it is relatively less studied in terms ofindividual behavior (Zheng et al., 2018), including health behavior.With regard to bedtime procrastination, there are two distinct and sometimes competingdemands: leisure and health. Individuals have leisure needs, such as wanting to detach, recover,or socialize, that are important to their wellbeing (Kuykendall et al., 2015). However, engaging inleisure activities during late-night hours can be incompatible with health goals. This is becausedelaying sleeping for leisure activities can trigger cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), whereina discrepancy between “what I want to do” (e.g., surfing the internet, hedonic values) and “what IFrontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.orgYan 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617am expected to do” (e.g., sleep hygiene, sufficient recovery) isexperienced. This form of attitude-behavior disconnect can causenegative emotions in individuals. The tension between leisure andhealth can also be explained by resource (i.e., time) conflicts (Riedigerand Freund, 2004), in which individuals want to satisfy both hedonicor leisure needs and health needs at the same time, but one comes atthe expense of the other, and they compete for the same time resource.3. The paradox mindset plays a role indealing with the tensionTo deal with tension, research suggests that individualsfirst attempt to understand or appraise the experience beforeemploying coping strategies (Lazarus, 1991). A mindset refersto a framework or lens that can help people interpret theirexperiences (Dweck, 2006), thus providing them with a meta-theoretical perspective to deal with tension (Schad et al., 2016).Drawing on the paradox literature, individuals might adopt adilemma mindset or a paradox mindset to cope with tension.Individuals with a dilemma mindset may only perceive bedtimeprocrastination as a threat and opt for the “either/or” strategy,such as goal prioritization, which includes goal shelving (Mayerand Freund, 2022). This is because people prefer consistencyin their beliefs and attitudes, and a dilemma mindset, whichhighlights contradictions, can cause anxiety. However, suppressingeither leisure or sleep needs might exacerbate the negativeconsequences caused by resource depletion (Vince and Broussine,1996).In contrast, individuals with a paradox mindset tend to value,accept, and exist in harmony with tension. In other words, ratherthan viewing tension as opposing dichotomies or dilemmas thatnecessitate trade-offs, people with a paradox mindset view tensionas opportunities to organize the complexities of reality and seekstrategies to leverage them to uncover the beneficial outcomes(Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). People with a paradox mindsetmay manage tensions through cognitive flexibility, which broadensthe scope of their attention span and allows them to considerdivergent perspectives on an issue in a more balanced manner(Rothman and Melwani, 2017). A paradox mindset, like expandedcognition, would also foster learning (Smith and Tushman, 2005).The more distinctions people make about different perspectivesor aspects of tension, the more they learn about the tension(or themselves), and the more likely they are to reach a pointof convergence. For example, they may still retain some leisuretime (and shorten it) before sleeping, but they will intentionallyarrange more work breaks during the daytime to satisfy theirleisure needs in a more balanced way. The paradox mindsetmight also enhance recovery self-efficacy—one’s confidence in gettingbenefits from recovery time and opportunities (Sonnentag and Kruel,2006). People with enhanced recovery self-efficacy are better atmaking use of leisure opportunities (e.g., during lunch or othermicro-breaks) throughout the day (Trougakos and Hideg, 2009)and thus do not need to create more leisure opportunities bydelaying their bedtime. Additionally, people with higher recoveryself-efficacy have a larger resource repertoire, which means thata lack of sleep may have less of an impact on their fatiguelevel (Park and Sprung, 2015).4. DiscussionIntegrating research on paradox theory with bedtimeprocrastination, this work postulates that the paradox mindsetis important for facilitating experiencing and responding totension posed by bedtime procrastination, resulting in moreconstructive outcomes. Specifically, with a paradox mindset,people are more likely to embrace rather than avoid bedtimeprocrastination. Accepting both sides of a conflict increasesthe number of ideas and solutions on how to address it.Furthermore, a paradox mindset may enhance individuals’intrinsic motivation (Liu et al., 2020) to deal with bedtimeprocrastination behavior by engaging in agentic behaviors suchas learning, goal-setting, and managing their tension in a morebalanced way. In addition, people’s recovery self-efficacy may alsobe improved.Prior research suggests that mindsets can be learned andimproved through training. For example, an earlier study foundthat the paradox mindset could be learned through livingwith tension (Lomranz and Benyamini, 2016). Interventionstudies that have adopted paradoxical inquiry methods reportedthat managers can be taught to change their experience andapproach to dealing with tension (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008).However, with limited empirical testing, it is unclear whetherthe improvement in mindset can be applied to the context ofbedtime procrastination. To summarize, this opinion paper providesa novel approach to understanding and addressing bedtimeprocrastination. We hope this work can fuel and inspire futureresearch aiming to address bedtime procrastination and otherrelevant health behaviors.Author contributionsThe author confirms being the sole contributor of this work andhas approved it for publication.Conflict of interestThe author declares that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could beconstrued as a potential conflict of interest.Publisher’s noteAll claims expressed in this article are solely those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliatedorganizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers.Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that maybe made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by thepublisher.Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.orgYan 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617ReferencesAshforth, B. E., and Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: managing thedynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Adm. Sci. Q. 59,474–516.Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York,Random House.Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Row. Chantilly: Peterson andCompany. doi: 10.1515/9781503620766Hill, V. M., Rebar, A. L., Ferguson, S. A., and Shriane, A. E. (2022). Go tobed! A systematic review and meta-analysis of bedtime procrastination correlatesand sleep outcomes. Sleep Med. Rev. 66, 101697. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101697Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, R. (2020). Insufficient sleep among adolescents: the roleof bedtime procrastination, chronotype and autonomous vs. controlled motivationalregulations. Current Psychol. 3, 1031–1040. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-9825-7Kroese, F. M., De Ridder, D, and Evers, D. T. C., and Adriaanse, M. A. (2014).Bedtime procrastination: introducing a new area of procrastination. Front Psychol. 5, 611.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00611Kroese, F. M., Evers, C., Adriaanse, M. A., and de Ridder, D. T. (2016). Bedtimeprocrastination: a self-regulation perspective on sleep insufficiency in the generalpopulation. J. Health Psychol. 5, 853–862. doi: 10.1177/1359105314540014Kuhnel, J., Syrek, C. J., and Dreher, A. (2018). Why don’t you go to bed ontime? A daily diary study on the relationships between chronotype, self-controlresources and the phenomenon of bedtime procrastination. Front Psychol. 9, 77.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00077Kuykendall, L., Tay, L., andNg, V. (2015). Leisure engagement and subjective wellbeing:a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 141:2, 364–403. doi: 10.1037/a0038508Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Liu, Y., Xu, S., and Zhang, B. (2020). Thriving at work: how a paradoxmindset influences innovative work behavior. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 3, 347–366.doi: 10.1177/0021886319888267Lomranz, J., and Benyamini, Y. (2016). The ability to live with incongruence:aintegration—the concept and its operationalization. J. Adult Develop. 23:2, 79–92.doi: 10.1007/s10804-015-9223-4Lüscher, L. S., and Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change andmanagerial sensemaking: working through paradox. Acad. Manage. J. 2, 221–240.doi: 10.5465/amj.2008.31767217Mayer, Z., and Freund, A. M. (2022). Better off without? Benefits and costs of resolvinggoal conflict through goal shelving and goal disengagement. Motivation Emotion 46:6,790–805. doi: 10.1007/s11031-022-09966-xMiron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2018).Microfoundations of organizational paradox: the problem is how we think about theproblem. Acad. Manage. J. 1, 26–45. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0594Mukherjee, S., Patel, S. R., Kales, S. N., Ayas, N. T., Strohl, K. P., Gozal, D., et al.(2015). An official american thoracic society statement: the importance of healthysleep. Recommendations and future priorities. Am. J. Respiratory Critical Care Med. 12,1450–1458. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201504-0767STPark, Y., and Sprung, J. M. (2015). Weekly work–school conflict, sleep quality, andfatigue: recovery self-efficacy as a cross-level moderator. J. Organizational Behav. 1,112–127. doi: 10.1002/job.1953Raisch, S., and Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management:the automation–augmentation paradox. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1, 192–210.doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0072Riediger, M., and Freund, A. M. (2004). Interference and facilitation among personalgoals: differential associations with subjective wellbeing and persistent goal pursuit.Personal. Social Psychol. Bull. 12, 1511–1523. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271184Rothman, N. B., and Melwani, S. (2017). Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: thesocial functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2, 259–282.doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0355Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., and Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research inmanagement science: looking back to move forward. Acad. Manage. Annals 1, 5–64.doi: 10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: adynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2, 381–403.doi: 10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958Smith, W. K., and Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: a topmanagement model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. 16, 522–536.Sonnentag, S., and Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological detachment from work during off-job time: the role of job stressors, job involvement, and recovery-related self-efficacy. Eur.J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 2, 197–217. doi: 10.1080/13594320500513939Trougakos, J. P., and Hideg, I. (2009). “Momentary work recovery: the role ofwithin-day work breaks,” in S Sonnentag, PL Perrewé, DC Ganster, eds CurrentPerspectives on Job-Stress Recovery, Vol. 7. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. p. 37–45.doi: 10.1108/S1479-3555(2009)0000007005Vince, R., and Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: accessing andworking with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. OrganizationStud. 1, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/017084069601700101Zheng, W., Kark, R., and Meister, A. L. (2018). Paradox vs. dilemma mindset: a theoryof how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. LeadershipQuarterly, 5, 584–596. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org

   University of GroningenTaking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastinationYan, NanxiPublished in:Frontiers in PsychologyDOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2023Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Yan, N. (2023). Taking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastination. Frontiers in Psychology, 14,Article 1096617. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 11-09-2023TYPE OpinionPUBLISHED 08 February 2023DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617OPEN ACCESSEDITED BYJun Hirayama,Komatsu University, JapanREVIEWED BYAnja Kühnel,Medical School Berlin, Germany*CORRESPONDENCENanxi Yann.yan@rug.nlSPECIALTY SECTIONThis article was submitted toHealth Psychology,a section of the journalFrontiers in PsychologyRECEIVED 12 November 2022ACCEPTED 27 January 2023PUBLISHED 08 February 2023CITATIONYan N (2023) Taking a paradoxical perspectiveon bedtime procrastination.Front. Psychol. 14:1096617.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617COPYRIGHT© 2023 Yan. This is an open-access articledistributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,distribution or reproduction in other forums ispermitted, provided the original author(s) andthe copyright owner(s) are credited and thatthe original publication in this journal is cited, inaccordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction ispermitted which does not comply with theseterms.Taking a paradoxical perspective onbedtime procrastinationNanxi Yan1,2*1Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen,Netherlands, 2Department of HRM and OB, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen,Groningen, NetherlandsKEYWORDSbedtime procrastination, paradox theory, paradox mindset, sleep, leisure time, leisureactivities, wellbeing1. IntroductionSocietal change driven by technological advancement and the blurring of the lines betweenwork and leisure has resulted in more and more individuals not getting sufficient sleepduring workdays, despite knowing that sleep is critical for mental, emotional, and physicalhealth (Mukherjee et al., 2015). One behavior that gives rise to sleep deprivation is bedtimeprocrastination (Kroese et al., 2014). Bedtime procrastination is the decision to go to bed laterthan intended in the absence of external reasons, such as a night shift or family responsibilities(Kroese et al., 2014). This is a widespread phenomenon in both Western countries such asthe United States and the Netherlands (Kroese et al., 2014, 2016), and many Asian countries(Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, 2020). As a relatively new concept, current research on bedtimeprocrastination mainly focuses on antecedent phenomena (e.g., chronotype, Kuhnel et al., 2018)and outcomes (e.g., daytime fatigue, Hill et al., 2022). Fewer studies, however, have examined theprocess of bedtime procrastination. This opinion paper aims to bridge this gap by shedding lighton how a paradoxical perspective can shape the process of dealing with bedtime procrastination.2. The paradoxical tension between leisure and healthpursuits in bedtime procrastinationParadoxes are “contradictory, yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persistover time” (Smith and Lewis, 2011, p. 382) [sic]. At the core of the paradox perspectiveis the notion that tension is embedded and, thus, embracing contradictory and interrelateddemands simultaneously is vital for success (Smith and Lewis, 2011). This perspective hasbeen used to examine a wide range of phenomena, such as managing artificial intelligencein organizations (Raisch and Krakowski, 2021) and competing for organizational identities(Ashforth and Reingen, 2014). Nevertheless, research adopting the paradox perspective oftenfocuses on tensions operating at the organizational level; it is relatively less studied in terms ofindividual behavior (Zheng et al., 2018), including health behavior.With regard to bedtime procrastination, there are two distinct and sometimes competingdemands: leisure and health. Individuals have leisure needs, such as wanting to detach, recover,or socialize, that are important to their wellbeing (Kuykendall et al., 2015). However, engaging inleisure activities during late-night hours can be incompatible with health goals. This is becausedelaying sleeping for leisure activities can trigger cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), whereina discrepancy between “what I want to do” (e.g., surfing the internet, hedonic values) and “what IFrontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.orgYan 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617am expected to do” (e.g., sleep hygiene, sufficient recovery) isexperienced. This form of attitude-behavior disconnect can causenegative emotions in individuals. The tension between leisure andhealth can also be explained by resource (i.e., time) conflicts (Riedigerand Freund, 2004), in which individuals want to satisfy both hedonicor leisure needs and health needs at the same time, but one comes atthe expense of the other, and they compete for the same time resource.3. The paradox mindset plays a role indealing with the tensionTo deal with tension, research suggests that individualsfirst attempt to understand or appraise the experience beforeemploying coping strategies (Lazarus, 1991). A mindset refersto a framework or lens that can help people interpret theirexperiences (Dweck, 2006), thus providing them with a meta-theoretical perspective to deal with tension (Schad et al., 2016).Drawing on the paradox literature, individuals might adopt adilemma mindset or a paradox mindset to cope with tension.Individuals with a dilemma mindset may only perceive bedtimeprocrastination as a threat and opt for the “either/or” strategy,such as goal prioritization, which includes goal shelving (Mayerand Freund, 2022). This is because people prefer consistencyin their beliefs and attitudes, and a dilemma mindset, whichhighlights contradictions, can cause anxiety. However, suppressingeither leisure or sleep needs might exacerbate the negativeconsequences caused by resource depletion (Vince and Broussine,1996).In contrast, individuals with a paradox mindset tend to value,accept, and exist in harmony with tension. In other words, ratherthan viewing tension as opposing dichotomies or dilemmas thatnecessitate trade-offs, people with a paradox mindset view tensionas opportunities to organize the complexities of reality and seekstrategies to leverage them to uncover the beneficial outcomes(Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). People with a paradox mindsetmay manage tensions through cognitive flexibility, which broadensthe scope of their attention span and allows them to considerdivergent perspectives on an issue in a more balanced manner(Rothman and Melwani, 2017). A paradox mindset, like expandedcognition, would also foster learning (Smith and Tushman, 2005).The more distinctions people make about different perspectivesor aspects of tension, the more they learn about the tension(or themselves), and the more likely they are to reach a pointof convergence. For example, they may still retain some leisuretime (and shorten it) before sleeping, but they will intentionallyarrange more work breaks during the daytime to satisfy theirleisure needs in a more balanced way. The paradox mindsetmight also enhance recovery self-efficacy—one’s confidence in gettingbenefits from recovery time and opportunities (Sonnentag and Kruel,2006). People with enhanced recovery self-efficacy are better atmaking use of leisure opportunities (e.g., during lunch or othermicro-breaks) throughout the day (Trougakos and Hideg, 2009)and thus do not need to create more leisure opportunities bydelaying their bedtime. Additionally, people with higher recoveryself-efficacy have a larger resource repertoire, which means thata lack of sleep may have less of an impact on their fatiguelevel (Park and Sprung, 2015).4. DiscussionIntegrating research on paradox theory with bedtimeprocrastination, this work postulates that the paradox mindsetis important for facilitating experiencing and responding totension posed by bedtime procrastination, resulting in moreconstructive outcomes. Specifically, with a paradox mindset,people are more likely to embrace rather than avoid bedtimeprocrastination. Accepting both sides of a conflict increasesthe number of ideas and solutions on how to address it.Furthermore, a paradox mindset may enhance individuals’intrinsic motivation (Liu et al., 2020) to deal with bedtimeprocrastination behavior by engaging in agentic behaviors suchas learning, goal-setting, and managing their tension in a morebalanced way. In addition, people’s recovery self-efficacy may alsobe improved.Prior research suggests that mindsets can be learned andimproved through training. For example, an earlier study foundthat the paradox mindset could be learned through livingwith tension (Lomranz and Benyamini, 2016). Interventionstudies that have adopted paradoxical inquiry methods reportedthat managers can be taught to change their experience andapproach to dealing with tension (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008).However, with limited empirical testing, it is unclear whetherthe improvement in mindset can be applied to the context ofbedtime procrastination. To summarize, this opinion paper providesa novel approach to understanding and addressing bedtimeprocrastination. We hope this work can fuel and inspire futureresearch aiming to address bedtime procrastination and otherrelevant health behaviors.Author contributionsThe author confirms being the sole contributor of this work andhas approved it for publication.Conflict of interestThe author declares that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could beconstrued as a potential conflict of interest.Publisher’s noteAll claims expressed in this article are solely those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliatedorganizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers.Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that maybe made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by thepublisher.Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.orgYan 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096617ReferencesAshforth, B. E., and Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: managing thedynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Adm. Sci. Q. 59,474–516.Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York,Random House.Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Row. Chantilly: Peterson andCompany. doi: 10.1515/9781503620766Hill, V. M., Rebar, A. L., Ferguson, S. A., and Shriane, A. E. (2022). Go tobed! A systematic review and meta-analysis of bedtime procrastination correlatesand sleep outcomes. Sleep Med. Rev. 66, 101697. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101697Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, R. (2020). Insufficient sleep among adolescents: the roleof bedtime procrastination, chronotype and autonomous vs. controlled motivationalregulations. Current Psychol. 3, 1031–1040. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-9825-7Kroese, F. M., De Ridder, D, and Evers, D. T. C., and Adriaanse, M. A. (2014).Bedtime procrastination: introducing a new area of procrastination. Front Psychol. 5, 611.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00611Kroese, F. M., Evers, C., Adriaanse, M. A., and de Ridder, D. T. (2016). Bedtimeprocrastination: a self-regulation perspective on sleep insufficiency in the generalpopulation. J. Health Psychol. 5, 853–862. doi: 10.1177/1359105314540014Kuhnel, J., Syrek, C. J., and Dreher, A. (2018). Why don’t you go to bed ontime? A daily diary study on the relationships between chronotype, self-controlresources and the phenomenon of bedtime procrastination. Front Psychol. 9, 77.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00077Kuykendall, L., Tay, L., andNg, V. (2015). Leisure engagement and subjective wellbeing:a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 141:2, 364–403. doi: 10.1037/a0038508Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Liu, Y., Xu, S., and Zhang, B. (2020). Thriving at work: how a paradoxmindset influences innovative work behavior. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 3, 347–366.doi: 10.1177/0021886319888267Lomranz, J., and Benyamini, Y. (2016). The ability to live with incongruence:aintegration—the concept and its operationalization. J. Adult Develop. 23:2, 79–92.doi: 10.1007/s10804-015-9223-4Lüscher, L. S., and Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change andmanagerial sensemaking: working through paradox. Acad. Manage. J. 2, 221–240.doi: 10.5465/amj.2008.31767217Mayer, Z., and Freund, A. M. (2022). Better off without? Benefits and costs of resolvinggoal conflict through goal shelving and goal disengagement. Motivation Emotion 46:6,790–805. doi: 10.1007/s11031-022-09966-xMiron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2018).Microfoundations of organizational paradox: the problem is how we think about theproblem. Acad. Manage. J. 1, 26–45. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0594Mukherjee, S., Patel, S. R., Kales, S. N., Ayas, N. T., Strohl, K. P., Gozal, D., et al.(2015). An official american thoracic society statement: the importance of healthysleep. Recommendations and future priorities. Am. J. Respiratory Critical Care Med. 12,1450–1458. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201504-0767STPark, Y., and Sprung, J. M. (2015). Weekly work–school conflict, sleep quality, andfatigue: recovery self-efficacy as a cross-level moderator. J. Organizational Behav. 1,112–127. doi: 10.1002/job.1953Raisch, S., and Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management:the automation–augmentation paradox. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1, 192–210.doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0072Riediger, M., and Freund, A. M. (2004). Interference and facilitation among personalgoals: differential associations with subjective wellbeing and persistent goal pursuit.Personal. Social Psychol. Bull. 12, 1511–1523. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271184Rothman, N. B., and Melwani, S. (2017). Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: thesocial functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2, 259–282.doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0355Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., and Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research inmanagement science: looking back to move forward. Acad. Manage. Annals 1, 5–64.doi: 10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: adynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2, 381–403.doi: 10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958Smith, W. K., and Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: a topmanagement model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. 16, 522–536.Sonnentag, S., and Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological detachment from work during off-job time: the role of job stressors, job involvement, and recovery-related self-efficacy. Eur.J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 2, 197–217. doi: 10.1080/13594320500513939Trougakos, J. P., and Hideg, I. (2009). “Momentary work recovery: the role ofwithin-day work breaks,” in S Sonnentag, PL Perrewé, DC Ganster, eds CurrentPerspectives on Job-Stress Recovery, Vol. 7. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. p. 37–45.doi: 10.1108/S1479-3555(2009)0000007005Vince, R., and Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: accessing andworking with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. OrganizationStud. 1, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/017084069601700101Zheng, W., Kark, R., and Meister, A. L. (2018). Paradox vs. dilemma mindset: a theoryof how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. LeadershipQuarterly, 5, 584–596. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org

https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/572740781/fpsyg_14_1096617.pdf

Taking a paradoxical perspective on bedtime procrastination

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Groningen

University of Groningen

NARCIS

University of Groningen

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

ARTS repository - University of Groningen