A
Rewrite “I plan to do it” as “what time, where, and what to do when what happens”
Value for cost Very high
In plain termsRewrite “I'm going to do this” as “When I sit down at my desk at 8 on Tuesday morning, I'll write the introduction first.” Taking 94 tests together, people who wrote it this way achieved their goals at a clearly higher rate, a medium-to-large effect. All that changes is how one sentence is written; it costs nothing and takes no effort.
- Cost
- Free. Each task takes 1 to 2 minutes, to write one “if…, then…” sentence. For example: “When I sit down at my desk at 8 on Tuesday morning, I'll write the introduction first.”
No money
Done in passing
No willpower
Benefit size large
- Benefit
- Pooling 94 independent tests, people who first wrote their intentions as “if…, then…” reached their goals at a higher rate. In psychology this way of writing is called an implementation intention. The effect size is d = 0.65, which counts as medium to large. It helps at three points: getting started, holding out when interrupted, and pulling out of things that are bound to fail.
- Evidence grade
- A
- Notes
- This only works for things you yourself truly want to do. If you don't want the goal itself, no number of sentences will help. Also, these studies mostly recruited students and mostly looked at health habits; carried over to a work setting, it may not work as well.
- Sources
- Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
B
Write down your exit condition before you start
Value for cost High
In plain termsBefore you start, write one sentence: if I still haven't hit a certain target by a certain date, I stop. Taking several studies together, writing it this way really does help people pull out of things that are bound to fail. What you save is all the time you would otherwise have kept pouring in.
- Cost
- Free. 5 minutes when you start, to write down clearly: “If I haven't hit a certain target by a certain date, I stop.” The hard part is owning up when that day comes; stopping in front of other people costs you a little face.
No money
Done in passing
Some willpower
Benefit size large
- Benefit
- Pooling several studies of implementation intentions, the result is that an “if…, then…” set in advance likewise helps people pull out of things that are bound to fail. The original wording is “disengagement from failing courses of action.” The time saved is the time you would otherwise have kept putting in.
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- Set the exit condition right at the start, while you're still calm. Set it later, and the cost already sunk will bias you. When judging, look only at future investment and future return; see Item 3. Also, “willing to pull out” is only one sub-finding within the pooled studies; no one has separately calculated how much time it saves.
- Sources
- Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
B
When deciding whether to continue, look only at future investment and future return, not at how much you've already put in
Value for cost Standard
In plain termsMoney and time already put in make people more inclined to keep going. Pooling 98 sets of data, this tendency holds steadily. So when judging whether to continue, count only how much more you'll have to put in and how much you can still get back. Don't count what's already been spent.
- Cost
- Free. The hard part is accepting one thing: the time you put in before is already gone, and you can't get it back.
No money
Done in passing
Some willpower
Benefit size medium
- Benefit
- Money, effort and time already invested make people more inclined to carry on. In psychology this is called the sunk-cost effect. Pooling 98 sets of data, the analysis confirmed that this tendency holds steadily. Avoid it, and you won't keep pouring in time just because you “don't want to waste it.”
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- Arkes and Blumer's theater experiment worked like this. The Ohio University theater sold season tickets and randomly gave buyers one of three prices: the full price of 15 US dollars, 2 dollars off, or 7 dollars off. In the first half of the season, the full-price group attended 4.11 shows on average; the other two groups, 3.32 and 3.29. In the second half of the season, the three groups no longer differed noticeably. Roth and colleagues found that this effect fades over time, and that older people are less affected by it.
- Sources
- Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4；Roth, S., Robbert, T., & Straus, L. (2015). On the sunk-cost effect in economic decision-making: A meta-analytic review. Business Research, 8(1), 99–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-014-0014-8
B
When estimating how long something will take, go by how long similar past tasks actually took, not by working forward from the plan
Value for cost Very high
In plain termsStudents estimated they would finish their thesis in 33.9 days; it actually took 55.5 days, and only 29.7% finished within the time they had estimated. Another group was asked to first recall how long the last similar task took and then estimate; the share finishing on time rose from 29.3% to 60.0%.
- Cost
- Free. Before estimating, spend a few minutes looking up how long the last similar task actually took.
No money
Done in passing
No willpower
Benefit size large
- Benefit
- Students expected to finish their thesis in 33.9 days; it actually took 55.5 days. Only 29.7% finished on time by their own estimate. The researchers asked another group to first connect their past experience with the task at hand, and then estimate. In this group, the share finishing on time rose from the control group's 29.3% to 60.0%. The optimism that makes people underestimate how long a job will take no longer appeared in this group.
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- Buehler's study recruited only Canadian university students; it is a single study with few people: 37, and about 40 per group. Estimating from historical data on similar projects is called reference class forecasting; for how it is done in engineering practice, see Flyvbjerg. Halkjelsvik, pooling many studies, notes that underestimating is more common than overestimating, but by how much varies a great deal with the task and the research method.
- Sources
- Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the "planning fallacy": Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366；Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280603700302；Halkjelsvik, T., & Jørgensen, M. (2012). From origami to software development: A review of studies on judgment-based predictions of performance time. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 238–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025996
B
Send an agenda before meetings, and don't hold meetings without one; stand up for meetings whenever you can
Value for cost High
In plain termsWhen an agenda was sent out before a meeting, participants were more likely to find the meeting useful. In an experiment, sit-down meetings ran 34% longer than standing ones, while the decisions made in the two formats were no different in quality.
- Cost
- Free. The organizer spends 5 to 10 minutes before the meeting writing an agenda. Standing meetings need participants to go along.
No money
Done in passing
No willpower
Benefit size medium
- Benefit
- Two surveys had 958 and 292 people respectively. The result: when an agenda was sent out before the meeting, participants were more likely to find the meeting effective, and this relationship holds up statistically. In another experiment, 55 groups met sitting down and 56 groups met standing; the sit-down meetings lasted 34% longer. The decisions made in the two formats did not differ in quality.
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- The standing-meeting experiment used tasks done by 5-person groups in the lab. Its conclusion can't be carried over as is to long meetings or large meetings. Leach measured how effective participants themselves felt the meeting was, not how much work actually got done.
- Sources
- Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9092-6；Bluedorn, A. C., Turban, D. B., & Love, M. S. (1999). The effects of stand-up and sit-down meeting formats on meeting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.277
B
Cut the number of meetings; don't meet over what can be settled asynchronously in writing
Contested Value for cost High
In plain termsThe more meetings in a day, the more tired people are, and the more work they feel they have on their plate. Cut one meeting, and the time saved is that meeting's full length, not a minute less.
- Cost
- Free. It needs your colleagues and your manager to go along. The hard part is that writing a clear paragraph takes more effort than just saying something out loud.
No money
Done in passing
Some willpower
Benefit size large
- Benefit
- Two surveys recruited employees working 35 or more hours a week, 676 and 304 people respectively. How much time meetings take up does not have a fixed effect on work attitudes and well-being; it depends on two things: whether the meetings are run well, and how much the job depends on other people to get work done. Another study had people keep a diary for a week straight; the more meetings on a given day, the higher the fatigue and the self-perceived workload. The time saved equals the length of the meetings you cut.
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- Contested: Rogelberg 2006 found that the relationship between the number of meetings and well-being is not one-sided. For jobs that depend heavily on others in their work, more meetings is actually not a bad thing. Also, no study has directly compared “switching to asynchronous written communication” with meetings; this item is the author's own inference.
- Sources
- Rogelberg, S. G., Leach, D. J., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2006). "Not another meeting!" Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.83；Luong, A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2005). Meetings and more meetings: The relationship between meeting load and the daily well-being of employees. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.9.1.58
B
Break a big task into subtasks before estimating the time and before starting
Value for cost High
In plain termsWhen people estimate how long something will take, they don't automatically break the task apart and count it piece by piece. List the subtasks first and then estimate, and you'll cut down how much you underestimate. Once it's broken down, every small step is something you can start on right away, so you're less prone to putting it off.
- Cost
- Free. The breakdown itself takes 5 to 15 minutes.
No money
Done in passing
No willpower
Benefit size medium
- Benefit
- When estimating how long something will take, people don't on their own break a task with several strands into pieces. Writing a literature review, writing the discussion and sorting out the references, for example, are really several separate jobs. Listing the subtasks first and then estimating reduces the habit of underestimating how long things take; this habit is called the planning fallacy. Once broken down, each small step becomes an action you can start immediately, and procrastination drops along with it. In the research, the factors that best predict procrastination include aversion to the task, and the task itself being pushed further off.
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- How far to break it down: the test is “each subtask can be finished in one sitting”; breaking it down too finely eats time in itself. Also, for the Kruger and Evans study, only the direction was verified, from the abstract; the specific percentages were not checked against the full text.
- Sources
- Kruger, J., & Evans, M. (2004). If you don't want to be late, enumerate: Unpacking reduces the planning fallacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.001；Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
B
Set yourself a date for things that have no outside deadline
Value for cost High
In plain termsWith a deadline set by someone else, 80.6% of students finished before it. Only 38.7% finished by the time they themselves had predicted. When something gets done is decided almost entirely by the deadline, and has little to do with one's own estimate. So for things without a deadline, set one yourself, and own it.
- Cost
- Free. The hard part is that once you set it, you have to stick to it; if you shrug it off when the day comes, it's as if you never set it.
No money
Done in passing
Some willpower
Benefit size large
- Benefit
- Of students with an external deadline, 80.6% finished before it. Only 38.7%, on the other hand, finished within the time they had predicted. When the work got done tracked the deadline almost exactly: the correlation coefficient was r = 0.82, and the closer this number is to 1, the more closely it tracks. It was only weakly related to their own predictions.
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- Tell someone else the date you've set, and it comes closer to the kind set by others. To be clear, what the research verified is that deadlines set by others work. The kind you set for yourself, such as time-boxing or the Pomodoro technique, no one has tested directly; here it is inferred by extension.
- Sources
- Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the "planning fallacy": Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366
A
Treat procrastination as avoiding discomfort, not as not trying hard enough
Value for cost Standard
In plain termsProcrastination has little to do with laziness or personality. What best shows whether a person will procrastinate is how unpleasant the task itself is for them, whether they think they can pull it off, and how easily they get carried off by whatever is in front of them. So what helps is reshaping the task so it's less unpleasant and making the first step smaller, not giving yourself a scolding and then forcing your way through.
- Cost
- Free. All that changes is the direction of your diagnosis: first ask what about the task makes you uncomfortable, then look for a fix.
No money
Done in passing
Some willpower
Benefit size medium
- Benefit
- A meta-analysis pooling 691 correlations found that several things are strongly and consistently related to procrastination: how aversive the task is, how far off the deadline is, self-efficacy (believing you can pull it off), impulsiveness, and conscientiousness along with its facets of self-control, distractibility, organization and achievement motivation. Neuroticism, rebelliousness and sensation seeking, by contrast, were only weakly associated with procrastination. The author explains these results with temporal motivation theory: a task's appeal right now shrinks rapidly as its reward gets further away.
- Evidence grade
- A
- Notes
- The size of the benefit is recorded as “medium” because these studies only point in a direction; they did not measure how many hours can be saved. The concrete steps are in Item 1 of this section (write it as “what time, where, and what to do when what happens”), Item 7 (break a big task into subtasks) and Item 8 (set a date for things with no outside deadline). These are pooled correlational studies; they can't show what causes what.
- Sources
- Steel P (2007). The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
B
Put what you need within reach and move what you want to avoid far away; don't count on resisting in the moment
Value for cost High
In plain termsWhen things are a bit farther away, people take a bit less. Put the same snack farther away, and the amount eaten clearly drops, a medium-sized effect. Put out fewer options, and clearly fewer people take it. Methods like these don't require you to hold back in the moment, and take only a few minutes to set up.
- Cost
- Free, a few minutes each time. Put your phone in another room; lay your books and computer out on the desk.
No money
Done in passing
No willpower
Benefit size medium
- Benefit
- A Cochrane review that included 24 randomized trials. Placing food farther away reduced the amount eaten: standardized mean difference −0.60 (95% CI −0.84 to −0.36, this is the confidence interval; 12 studies, 1098 people, low-certainty evidence), a medium effect. Reducing the number of options lowered selection of that food more markedly: standardized mean difference −1.13 (95% CI −1.90 to −0.37, 3 studies, 154 people, low-certainty evidence). Regression analysis showed that the farther away the food and the more limited the options, the stronger the effect.
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- Why grade B: all 24 studies included in this review were about food, and not a single one about alcohol or tobacco; 14 were done in the lab, and all came from high-income countries. So carrying “move it away and you'll touch it less” over to phones and games is an inference by extension, with no direct trial. Putting your phone out of sight, specifically, has been tested directly; see Section 3, Item 1 (turn off nonessential notifications, and keep your phone out of sight while you work).
- Sources
- Hollands GJ, Carter P, Anwer S, et al. (2019). Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol, and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 9, CD012573. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012573.pub3
A
If you want to make yourself follow through, put money on the line, but first ask yourself whether you're willing to stake it
Value for cost Standard
In plain termsTo push yourself to follow through, you can collect a reward when you succeed, or pay a deposit first that is returned, plus a bonus, only if you succeed. Among people willing to join either one, those who paid a deposit succeeded 13 percentage points more often. But only 13.7% were willing to pay a deposit, versus 90% willing to take a reward, so a deposit only helps people willing to put one down.
- Cost
- A deposit scheme requires you to put up a sum of your own money first, forfeited if you don't succeed. In the trial the deposit was 150 US dollars.
A little money
Done in passing
Some willpower
Benefit size medium
- Benefit
- A randomized trial of 2538 people in the US randomly assigned employees and their relatives and friends to four incentive programs or usual care. Acceptance was 90.0% for the reward type (about 800 US dollars for succeeding) and 13.7% for the deposit type (pay 150 dollars up front, plus a 650-dollar reward). Sustained six-month quit rates: between 9.4% and 16.0% for the four incentive programs, and 6.0% for usual care. The reward type reached 15.7%, the deposit type 10.2%. But counting only the 13.7% who were “willing to join either one,” the deposit type's six-month quit rate was 13.2 percentage points higher than the reward type's (95% CI 3.1 to 22.8, this is the confidence interval).
- Evidence grade
- A
- Notes
- This trial measured quitting smoking; carrying it over to things like writing a paper or working out is an inference by extension, so the size of the benefit is recorded as “medium.” When choosing a scheme, first consider whether you would actually use it. A method most people won't accept, however strong its effect, does nothing for those people. So pick the kind you're willing to accept first; staking a little beats staking nothing. For how to quit smoking itself, see Section 2, Item 3 (smoking-cessation medication).
- Sources
- Halpern SD, French B, Small DS, et al. (2015). Randomized trial of four financial-incentive programs for smoking cessation. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(22), 2108–2117. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1414293
B
Count a new habit in months, not in “21 days”
Value for cost Standard
In plain terms“It takes 21 days to form a habit” has no basis. By the count of a study that followed people for 12 weeks, for an action to become something you do without thinking took 18 days at the fastest and 254 days at the slowest. It's normal if it hasn't gotten easier after two or three weeks. Missing a day along the way doesn't reset your progress to zero either.
- Cost
- Free. What it takes is repeating the same action every day in the same setting, for several months.
No money
Done in passing
Lots of willpower
Benefit size medium
- Benefit
- Each of 96 volunteers picked one eating, drinking or activity behavior and did it every day in a fixed setting (for example, “after breakfast”) for 12 weeks, rating each day how automatic it felt. Data from 82 people were sufficient for analysis, and the model was fitted successfully for 62. The number of days needed to reach 95% of each person's own automaticity plateau ranged from 18 days to 254 days. The study also found that missing a single opportunity to perform the behavior had no material effect on the habit-forming process.
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- There is only this one study, of 96 people, and the actions were all simple (such as eating a piece of fruit after a meal). How long more complex things take, such as running three times a week or writing every day, no one has measured. So if it's still hard work after two weeks, that can't be taken as evidence of failure. To make sure the repetition actually happens, tie the action to a fixed setting; see Item 1 of this section (write it as “what time, where, and what to do when what happens”).
- Sources
- Lally P, van Jaarsveld CHM, Potts HWW, Wardle J (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674
A
If procrastination is already affecting your life, use self-help materials backed by randomized trials; you don't have to find a therapist
Value for cost Standard
In plain termsProcrastination bad enough to cause real distress can be treated. Working through cognitive-behavioral self-help materials for ten weeks, whether with someone guiding you or entirely on your own, was clearly better than doing nothing. No difference showed between guided and unguided, so following the materials on your own also works.
- Cost
- A self-help book costs a few dozen yuan, and some are free. It takes about ten weeks: read one module and do one exercise each week.
No money
A few hours
Some willpower
Benefit size medium
- Benefit
- A total of 150 people were randomized into three groups: self-help guided by a therapist, unguided self-help, and a waiting-list control. After ten weeks, the between-group effect sizes on the Pure Procrastination Scale were d = 0.70 for the guided group (95% CI 0.29–1.10, this is the confidence interval) and d = 0.50 (0.10–0.90) for the unguided group; on the Irrational Procrastination Scale they were 0.81 (0.40–1.22) and 0.69 (0.29–1.09) respectively. The share reaching clinically meaningful improvement: 31.3% to 40.0% in the guided group, 24.0% to 36.0% in the unguided group. The two groups did not differ significantly on any outcome.
- Evidence grade
- A
- Notes
- The participants were Swedish adults using Swedish-language materials, and there is no ready-made Chinese version of the same program, so the size of the benefit is recorded as “medium.” The components of the materials are the usual ones: behavioral activation, behavioral experiments, stimulus control, and explanations of motivation and work methods. Stimulus control is covered in Item 10 of this section (move what you want to avoid far away). If procrastination comes with marked low mood or anxiety, start with Section 3, Item 18 (get moving, get some sun, sleep on schedule, talk to someone, call the 12356 mental-health hotline).
- Sources
- Rozental A, Forsell E, Svensson A, Andersson G, Carlbring P (2015). Internet-based cognitive-behavior therapy for procrastination: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(4), 808–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000023
B
Use your own hourly wage to decide which chores to outsource
Value for cost High
In plain termsPeople in China spend an average of 1 hour 17 minutes a day on housework. Among those who actually did housework that day, it was 1 hour 59 minutes. People who spend money to buy time are more satisfied with their lives. The same sum of money makes people happier in the moment when spent on buying time than when spent on things.
- Cost
- You pay for the outsourcing; how much depends on what service you buy. You also need to spend some time once, up front, working out your hourly wage.
Real money
Done in passing
No willpower
Benefit size large
- Benefit
- Residents of China spend an average of 1 hour 17 minutes a day on housework. Counting only those who did housework, the average is 1 hour 59 minutes. This is from a 2024 survey covering 38,500 households and 107,000 people. Another study drew a sample of 6271 people in four countries: those who spent money to buy time had higher life satisfaction. The researchers also ran an experiment in real life: the same sum of money brought greater momentary happiness when spent on buying time than when spent on material things.
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- First work out your hourly wage: one month's after-tax income ÷ the hours you actually work in a month. Then look at what outsourcing this chore costs. If the unit price of outsourcing is below your hourly wage, and you really will use the time saved to earn money or to rest, outsource it. Everyone's hourly wage and outsourcing prices differ, so you have to work out the conclusion yourself. Also, Whillans measured whether people were happier after spending money to buy time, not how many hours they saved.
C
Set hard limits on short videos and aimless scrolling
Value for cost High
In plain termsPeople in China spend an average of 5 hours 37 minutes online a day. Among those who actually went online that day, it is 6 hours 3 minutes. In 2018, by the same calculation, it was still only 2 hours 42 minutes. This is the largest figure in this section. Cut one hour a day, and you gain 365 hours a year.
- Cost
- Free. The steps take only a few minutes: turn off push notifications, delete the apps, or set a daily time limit on an app. The hard part is keeping your hands in check and resisting the urge to open them.
No money
Done in passing
Lots of willpower
Benefit size large
- Benefit
- Residents of China spend an average of 5 hours 37 minutes online a day. Counting only those who actually went online that day, the average is 6 hours 3 minutes. People who used the internet that day made up 92.9%. These are 2024 figures. In 2018, by the same calculation, it was only 2 hours 42 minutes. This is the largest figure in this section. Cutting one hour of it a day amounts to 365 extra hours a year. In addition, according to the China Internet Network Information Center, as of June 2025 internet users spent an average of 30.6 hours a week online, 1.9 hours more than half a year earlier. Short-video users numbered 1.068 billion, 95.1% of internet users.
- Evidence grade
- C
- Notes
- Time online includes work, study and socializing; not all of it is wasted. It is graded C because no study has calculated “how much is won back after setting limits, and where that time then goes”; all there is to go on is aggregate statistics. For one category within it, “scrolling to see how others are doing,” randomized trials have measured how much time was won back and how much mood changed; see Section 3, Item 20.
C
Skip TV and rolling news; check the information you need in batches at set times
Value for cost High
In plain termsIn the US, people aged 15 and over watch 2.6 hours of TV a day, taking up half of all their leisure time. People in China watch an average of 1 hour 40 minutes a day, and older people aged 75 to 84 watch 3 hours 16 minutes. Switch to checking the information you need in batches at set times, and what you save is this whole block.
- Cost
- Free. The hard part is breaking the habit of switching them on without thinking, and you may miss some breaking news.
No money
Done in passing
Some willpower
Benefit size large
- Benefit
- In the US, people aged 15 and over watch TV 2.6 hours a day. Their total leisure time is 5.2 hours, so TV takes up half of it. These are 2025 figures. Residents of China watch TV an average of 1 hour 40 minutes a day; people aged 75 to 84, 3 hours 16 minutes. These are 2018 figures.
- Evidence grade
- C
- Notes
- All there is to go on is aggregate statistics. No study has calculated where the time saved goes after people watch less TV and news. The practice of “checking in batches” comes from the author's experience.
B
Spend time once to learn keyboard shortcuts and automation for the software you use often
Value for cost Standard
In plain termsMost people who have used Word for many years still click toolbar icons. In experiments comparing groups, shortcuts were faster than both menus and icons. Learning them is a one-time cost; after that, every operation every day pays some of it back. The longer you do the same kind of work, the more you earn back.
- Cost
- Free. Learning takes a one-time investment of a few hours to a few dozen hours. The hard part is that at first you're even slower than with the mouse.
No money
A few hours
Some willpower
Benefit size medium
- Benefit
- A study looked at 251 experienced Word users; most rarely used the faster keyboard shortcuts and mainly clicked icon toolbars. Experiments comparing groups confirmed that of the three methods, menus, icons and keyboard shortcuts, shortcuts were the fastest. The time won back accumulates bit by bit with the number of operations each day. People who do the same kind of work over the long term gain the most.
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- Learn only the operations you use ten or more times a day; learning everything is another kind of waste. To be clear, that efficiency experiment had only 6 participants, and the abstract does not give the number of seconds saved per operation.
- Sources
- Lane, D. M., Napier, H. A., Peres, S. C., & Sándor, A. (2005). Hidden costs of graphical user interfaces: Failure to make the transition from menus and icon toolbars to keyboard shortcuts. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1802_1
B
When choosing where to live, put commute time first and shorten your one-way commute
Contested Value for cost Standard
In plain termsThe longer people's commutes, the worse they feel their lives are going. This loss is not made up for in pay or housing. Cut 30 minutes off the one-way trip, and you save 5 hours a week.
- Cost
- High cost. You may have to pay higher rent, or move to a smaller place. Moving itself also takes time.
Real money
A few hours
No willpower
Benefit size large
- Benefit
- Residents of China spend an average of 50 minutes a day on travel. Counting only those who made a trip that day, it is 1 hour 2 minutes. These are 2024 figures. Data from Germany that followed the same people over many years show that people with longer commutes have consistently lower subjective well-being (how well they feel their life is going). And this loss is not compensated for in income or housing. A review that draws together many studies also confirms that the longer the commute, the less satisfied people are with it, regardless of the mode of transport. Cut 30 minutes off the one-way trip, and you save about 5 hours a week.
- Evidence grade
- B
- Notes
- Contested: Chatterjee and colleagues, pooling many studies, note that no stable relationship can yet be seen between commute length and overall life satisfaction. They argue that people can by and large make up for the losses of a long commute with a better job or better housing. Note also that the travel statistics count all trips, not just commuting. And if you can commute off-peak, the same route can take less time.
