Buying time promotes happiness

Abstract

Around the world, increases in wealth have produced an unintended consequence: a rising sense of time scarcity. We provide evidence that using money to buy time can provide a buffer against this time famine, thereby promoting happiness. Using large, diverse samples from the United States, Canada, Denmark, and The Netherlands (n = 6,271), we show that individuals who spend money on time-saving services report greater life satisfaction. A field experiment provides causal evidence that working adults report greater happiness after spending money on a timesaving purchase than on a material purchase. Together, these results suggest that using money to buy time can protect people from the detrimental effects of time pressure on life satisfaction. time | money | happiness | well-being I n recent decades, incomes have risen in many countries (1, 2), potentially exacerbating a new form of poverty: from Germany to Korea to the United States, people with higher incomes report greater time scarcity (3). Feelings of time stress are in turn linked to lower well-being, including reduced happiness, increased anxiety, and insomnia (4-6). Time stress is also a critical factor underlying rising rates of obesity: lacking time is a primary reason that people report failing to eat healthy foods or exercise regularly (7,8). In theory, rising incomes could offer a way out of the "time famine" of modern life (9), because wealth offers the opportunity to have more free time, such as by paying more to live closer to work. However, some evidence suggests that wealthier people spend more time engaging in stressful activities, such as shopping and commuting (10). Experimental research shows that simply leading people to feel that their time is economically valuable induces them to feel that they do not have enough of it (11).A great deal of attention has been devoted to reducing financial scarcity, but there is relatively little rigorous research examining how to reduce feelings of time scarcity, which in fact may offer a particularly difficult challenge given that time, unlike money, is inherently finite. Could allocating discretionary income to buy free time-such as by paying to delegate common household chores, like cleaning, shopping, and cooking-reduce the negative effects of the modern time famine, thereby promoting well-being? The growth of the sharing economy has made time-saving services increasingly accessible, but no empirical research has tested whether using such services enhances happiness.From our theoretical perspective, buying time should protect people from the negative impact of time stress on life satisfaction. This conceptualization draws on the social support literature, in which research on the "buffering hypothesis" has demonstrated that receiving social support can protect people from experiencing the negative consequences of stress (12). That is, the typical relationship between stress and reduced well-being is attenuated for individuals who are able to access social support (13-15). We suggest that buying time may ...

Reducing Working Hours as a Means to Foster Low(er)-Carbon Lifestyles? An Exploratory Study on Swiss Employees

“…It has been argued that time scarcity prevents increases of consumption from being experienced in a meaningful way and therefore from leading to an increase in life satisfaction [20]. Empirically, it has been shown that spending money on time-saving but energy-intensive services can protect working adults from such adversary effects [21]. Moreover, it has been shown that the experience of time affluence is positively related to subjective well-being, partly because time affluence allows for the better satisfaction of psychological needs, such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness [22].…”

Translating Time to Cash: Monetizing Non-salary Benefits Shifts Employment Preferences

“…However, a limitation of these results is that we asked participants about their perception of these jobs after they had already made their decision about which jobs they would have preferred; thus, these results were biased by the decisions that individuals made immediately prior to providing their responses. Furthermore, although we modelled these questions after previously published research (Whillans et al, 2017), we only used single item measures to assess our key constructs of interest. To overcome these limitations, we conducted a more formal test of whether monetization shifted perceptions of the organization.…”

“…After making their decision, participants completed a 9-item measure assessing why made this decision. We adapted this measure from previous research assessing differences in purchase characteristics (Whillans et al, 2017). Specifically, we asked participants to report the extent to which they selected the job because the organization was more fun, higher in status, had more opportunity for advancement, cared more about employees, had a better salary, better benefits, better total compensation (salary/benefits), or because they thought the organization had better work-life balance.…”

Spousal resources and relationship quality in eight European countries

“…a variable that is caused both by resources and by relationship quality (see e.g. Whillans et al (2017)).…”