Stopping Time Wasters

Change “I plan to do this” into “If I sit at my desk at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, I’ll start by writing the introduction.” Across 94 separate studies, people who used this phrasing were far more likely to achieve their goals — this effect is moderate to large. All it requires is rewriting one sentence; there’s no expense and almost no extra effort.

Cost

No cost at all. Each step takes just 1–2 minutes — simply write a sentence like “If… then…”. For example: “If I sit at my desk at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, I’ll start by writing the introduction.”

Benefit

When all 94 studies are combined, individuals who expressed their plans as “if… then…” statements had significantly higher success rates. This technique is known in psychology as implementation intentions. The effect size here is d = 0.65, which qualifies as moderate to large. Three key moments benefit from this approach: initiating action, resisting distractions, and disengaging from tasks that seem impossible to complete.

Note

This method works only for goals you genuinely want to achieve. If a goal holds no personal value for you, writing multiple such statements won’t help. Additionally, most research participants were students, and the studies focused on health-related habits; results may not translate directly to workplace settings.

Before you begin any project, write one simple sentence: “If a certain target isn’t met by a specific date, then we’ll stop.” Multiple studies combined show this approach really does help people pull back from efforts they’re unlikely to succeed at. What you save is all the time you’d otherwise keep pouring into that project.

Cost

No cost at all. It takes just 5 minutes at the start to write down: “If a certain target isn’t met by a specific date, then we’ll stop.” The hard part is actually honoring that promise when the day comes — it can feel embarrassing to call off a project in front of others.

Benefit

When data from several studies on commitment strategies are pooled together, the result is clear: setting a clear “if… then…” condition beforehand also helps people disengage from failing courses of action. The time saved is exactly the amount you’d have kept investing otherwise.

Note

Exit criteria should be written at the very start of a project, while emotions are still neutral. Deciding on them later gets skewed by all the resources already spent; at that point you should focus only on future investment and future returns, as explained in item 3. Also, “the ability to withdraw” is just one sub‑finding across those studies — no single study has calculated exactly how much time it can save.

Money and time already spent make people more inclined to keep going. Across 98 datasets, this tendency remains consistent. Therefore, when deciding whether to continue, only factor in future investments and expected returns; past expenditures should be excluded from consideration.

Cost

No cost involved. The difficulty lies in accepting that time already invested cannot be recovered.

Benefit

Prior investments of money, effort, and time increase the likelihood of continued engagement. This is known as the sunk cost effect in psychology. Analysis of 98 datasets confirms this tendency is stable. Avoiding this bias prevents people from continuing to invest time solely to avoid “wasting” what they have already spent.

Note

This is exactly what Arkes and Blumer demonstrated in their theater experiment. The Ohio University Theater sold season tickets at three price points: full price ($15), $13, and $8. In the first half of the season, ticket holders who paid full price attended an average of 4.11 shows, compared to 3.32 and 3.29 shows for the other two groups. No significant differences emerged between the groups in the second half of the season. Roth and colleagues found this effect diminishes over time and is less pronounced among older individuals.

Students who estimated they would finish a paper in 33.9 days actually took 55.5 days to complete it; only 29.7% of them met their own estimates. Another group of students was asked to first recall how long similar tasks had taken them in the past before making their estimates. The proportion of students who finished on time rose from 29.3% to 60.0% in this group.

Cost

No cost at all. It only requires a few minutes of review to look up how long similar tasks took previously.

Benefit

Students originally expected to finish their papers in 33.9 days, but the actual time taken was 55.5 days. Only 29.7% of them completed their work by their own estimates. When researchers asked another group of students to first relate past experiences to the current task before estimating, the proportion of students finishing on time rose from 29.3% to 60.0% compared to the control group. This optimism of underestimating timelines no longer appeared in this group.

Note

Buehler’s study involved only university students in Canada; it was a single study with a small sample size of 37 participants, with roughly 40 participants in each group. Estimating timelines based on historical data from similar projects is known as reference class forecasting; specific engineering applications are described in Flyvbjerg’s work. Halkjelsvik’s review of multiple studies shows that underestimating timelines is more common than overestimating, though the magnitude of the error varies widely depending on the task and research methodology.

When an agenda is shared beforehand, attendees are more likely to view the meeting as useful. In experiments, seated meetings lasted 34% longer than standing ones, yet the quality of decisions reached under both formats was identical.

Cost

No monetary cost. Organizers spend 5–10 minutes writing an agenda before the meeting. Standing meetings require participants’ cooperation.

Benefit

Two studies involved 958 and 292 participants respectively. Results showed that meetings with pre‑distributed agendas were perceived as more effective by attendees — a statistically significant relationship. In another experiment, 55 groups met while seated and 56 while standing; seated meetings again ran 34% longer, with no difference in decision quality between the two formats.

Note

The standing‑meeting experiment involved five‑person groups working on tasks in a lab setting. These findings cannot be directly applied to lengthy meetings or large conferences. Leach measured participants’ subjective perceptions of effectiveness rather than actual output levels.

The more meetings you have in a day, the more exhausted you feel, and the more work seems to pile up on your plate. Canceling even one meeting frees up exactly as much time as the meeting itself lasts – no less, no more.

Cost

No monetary cost. Requires cooperation from colleagues and supervisors. The main difficulty is that writing a clear message takes more effort than simply speaking it out loud.

Benefit

Two surveys involved employees working 35+ hours per week – one with 676 participants, the other with 304. How much time meetings consume and their impact on attitude and happiness aren’t fixed; they depend on two factors: how well the meetings are run and how much a role relies on teamwork. Another study asked participants to keep daily logs for a week; it found that more meetings per day led to greater fatigue and perceived workload. The time saved equals precisely the duration of those canceled meetings.

Note

Controversy: Rogelberg’s 2006 research shows the relationship between meeting frequency and happiness isn’t one-directional; for roles heavily dependent on collaboration, frequent meetings may actually be beneficial. Additionally, no study has directly compared asynchronous written communication to holding meetings, so this recommendation is the author’s own inference.

When estimating how long a task will take, people rarely break it down into individual subtasks and calculate each one separately. Listing all subtasks first and then estimating the total duration helps avoid underestimating the required time. Once broken down, each small step can be tackled right away, which also reduces the likelihood of procrastination.

Cost

No cost involved. The actual breakdown process takes 5 to 15 minutes.

Benefit

People tend to overlook the need to split multi-component tasks into smaller parts when estimating timelines. For instance, writing a literature review, drafting the discussion section, and organizing references are all distinct tasks. By first listing all relevant subtasks and then estimating the overall time, one can avoid the common planning fallacy of underestimating duration. Moreover, once tasks are broken down, each small step becomes a concrete action that can be started immediately, thereby lowering procrastination rates. Research shows that key predictors of procrastination include a person’s aversion to the task and the tendency to postpone it.

Note

As a general guideline, each subtask should be small enough to be completed during a single focused work session; splitting tasks into overly detailed pieces is itself time-consuming. Additionally, Kruger and Evans’ study was verified only for its overall direction based on the abstract; the exact percentages cited were not cross-checked against the original research text.

When there is an external deadline, 80.6% of students manage to finish their work before it. But only 38.7% finish within their own estimated timeframe. The actual completion time is almost entirely determined by the external deadline, with little connection to their own estimates. That’s why it’s crucial to set your own deadline for tasks with no external deadline, and then follow through on it.

Cost

No cost involved. The hard part is actually sticking to the deadline you set. If you ignore it when the day arrives, it’s as if you never set it at all.

Benefit

For students with an external deadline, 80.6% complete their work before it. Meanwhile, only 38.7% finish within their own estimated timeframe. The actual completion time closely aligns with the external deadline, with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.82 — the closer this number is to 1, the tighter the alignment. There is only a very weak link between completion time and students’ own estimates.

Note

Telling others about the deadline you set for yourself makes it behave more like an external deadline. It’s worth noting that this research only proves external deadlines are effective. For self-set deadlines such as time-boxing or using Pomodoro timers, no direct studies have been conducted, so this conclusion is drawn by inference.

Procrastination has little to do with laziness or personality traits. What truly predicts whether someone procrastinates is how unpleasant the task feels, whether they believe they can complete it, and how easily they get distracted by immediate temptations. Therefore, the best approach is to make the task less unpleasant and break the first step into a tiny, manageable action — rather than scolding yourself and forcing yourself to work.

Cost

No cost at all. The only change needed is in how you judge the situation: first ask yourself where the discomfort lies, then figure out how to address it.

Benefit

A meta-analysis that included 691 correlation coefficients found several factors with a strong, consistent link to procrastination: how aversive the task is, how much time remains until the deadline, self-efficacy (the belief in one’s ability to succeed), impulsivity, and conscientiousness — including self-control, susceptibility to distraction, organization skills, and achievement motivation. In contrast, neuroticism, rebelliousness, and sensation-seeking show only very weak connections to procrastination. The authors explain these results using time motivation theory: the immediate appeal of a task drops rapidly as the expected reward is pushed further into the future.

Note

This guideline only provides general direction rather than specific actionable steps, so its overall benefit is rated as moderate — no quantitative estimate of time saved has been calculated. Concrete actions are outlined in item 1 of this section (which specifies exact times, locations, and concrete actions to take), item 7 (which advises breaking large tasks into smaller sub-tasks), and item 8 (which recommends setting a deadline even for tasks without any external deadline). Keep in mind this is a summary of correlational research, so it should not be interpreted as evidence of direct causal relationships.

When items are physically farther away, people tend to consume less of them. Placing snacks at a distance noticeably cuts down on intake — this effect is of moderate strength. Limiting the number of available choices also leads to a marked drop in consumption. These strategies require no willpower on your part; you can arrange everything in just a few minutes.

Cost

No cost involved; takes just a few minutes to set up. Simply move your phone to another room and lay out books and a computer on the desk.

Benefit

A Cochrane review encompassing 24 randomized trials supports these findings. Moving food farther away reduces consumption, with a standardized mean difference of −0.60 (95% CI −0.84 to −0.36; based on 12 studies involving 1,098 participants; evidence of low certainty). Limiting food options yields an even stronger effect, with a standardized mean difference of −1.13 (95% CI −1.90 to −0.37; based on 3 studies involving 154 participants; evidence of low certainty). Regression analysis confirms that both distance and fewer choices amplify the effect.

Note

This B rating stems from the fact that all 24 studies included in the review focused on food only; none examined alcohol or tobacco. Additionally, 14 of those studies were conducted in laboratory settings and originated from high-income countries. Applying these same principles to phones and video games is a logical extrapolation, as no direct trials exist on this specific use case. One study directly examined the effect of removing phones from one’s line of sight; see Section 3, Item 1 for details (turning off nonessential notifications and keeping phones out of sight while working).

A randomized trial compared two incentive models: one offering a cash reward for success, and another requiring an upfront deposit that is refunded plus a bonus only if the goal is met. Among those willing to join either program, the deposit model produced a success rate 13 percentage points higher than the reward model. Yet only 13.7% of participants agreed to pay the deposit, while 90% opted for the reward option. Thus the deposit approach works best for those willing to pay; for everyone else it essentially has no effect.

Cost

Under this deposit‑based approach, participants must put up their own cash upfront; if they fail to meet the target, the money is forfeited. In this trial, the required deposit was $150.

Benefit

In a U.S. trial with 2,538 participants, employees and their relatives were randomly assigned to one of four incentive schemes or standard care. The reward model (earning roughly $800 for success) attracted 90.0% participation, whereas the deposit model (requiring a $150 upfront payment plus a $650 bonus) attracted just 13.7%. After six months, overall quit rates ranged from 9.4% to 16.0% across all incentive groups, compared with 6.0% under standard care. The reward model yielded a 15.7% quit rate, while the deposit model produced 10.2%. However, when looking only at the 13.7% of participants willing to pay the deposit, the deposit model achieved a six‑month quit rate 13.2 percentage points higher than the reward model (95% CI 3.1–22.8, a reliable range).

Note

This trial focused on smoking cessation; extrapolating the findings to activities such as essay writing or exercise suggests a moderate overall benefit. The key takeaway is not which method is more effective, but whether you’d actually be willing to use it: a powerful incentive that most people reject is essentially useless for them. Therefore, pick an approach you’re comfortable with — even a modest deposit can be more effective than no deposit at all. For practical smoking‑cessation strategies, see Section 2, Item 3 (smoking‑cessation medications).

The idea that “it takes 21 days to form a habit” has no scientific basis. One study tracking participants over 12 weeks found that it took as little as 18 days for an action to become automatic, while some people needed as many as 254 days. It’s perfectly normal for things to feel difficult for two or three weeks. Missing a single day also does not reset any progress.

Cost

No cost at all. What’s required is simply repeating the same action every day in the same context for several months.

Benefit

Ninety-six volunteers each chose a simple action related to eating, drinking, or physical activity, and performed it daily in a fixed context (such as “after breakfast”) for 12 weeks, rating how automatic the action felt each day. Data from 82 participants proved sufficient for analysis, and the model successfully matched 62 of them. The number of days required to reach 95% automation ranged from 18 to 254 days. The study also showed that missing one day of practice has no meaningful impact on habit formation.

Note

This is the only study of its kind, involving just 96 participants who performed very simple actions (like eating a piece of fruit after a meal). No research has examined how long it takes to form more complex habits, such as running three times a week or writing daily. The main takeaway here is to set realistic expectations: finding it hard for two weeks is not a sign of failure. To actually make repetition happen, link the action to a fixed context — see point 1 in this section, which advises specifying “at what time, where, and under what circumstances” the action should be done.

Procrastination severe enough to cause real distress is treatable. Following cognitive-behavioral self-help materials for ten weeks yields clear benefits, whether a therapist guides you or you work on your own. In fact, there is no meaningful difference between the two approaches, so going it alone works just as well.

Cost

A self-help book costs just a few dozen yuan; some are even free. It takes about ten weeks of effort — one chapter per week plus one related exercise.

Benefit

150 participants were randomly assigned to three groups: self-help with therapist guidance, self-help without guidance, and a waitlist control group. After ten weeks, effect sizes on the pure procrastination scale were d = 0.70 (95% CI 0.29–1.10) for the guided group and d = 0.50 (0.10–0.90) for the unguided group. On the irrational procrastination scale, these values were 0.81 (0.40–1.22) and 0.69 (0.29–1.09) respectively. The proportion of participants achieving clinically meaningful improvement was 31.3% to 40.0% in the guided group and 24.0% to 36.0% in the unguided group. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two self-help groups on any outcome measure.

Note

Participants in this trial were Swedish adults using Swedish-language materials; no identical Chinese versions exist, so the magnitude of benefit is rated as moderate. The materials incorporate standard cognitive-behavioral components: behavioral activation, behavioral experiments, stimulus control (as described in Section 10 of this chapter, which advises moving unwanted items out of reach), and guidance on motivation and work strategies. If procrastination co-occurs with significant low mood or anxiety, follow the advice in Section 3, Item 18: engage in physical activity, get sunlight, maintain regular sleep patterns, talk to others, and call 12356 for support.

On average, Chinese residents spend 1 hour and 17 minutes each day doing household chores. Among those who actually do them, the average time spent is 1 hour and 59 minutes. People who pay to save time tend to report higher life satisfaction. For the same amount of money, spending it on time rather than goods brings greater immediate happiness.

Cost

Outsourcing chores comes at a cost, which varies depending on the service chosen. You’ll also need to spend some time upfront calculating your own hourly wage.

Benefit

According to a 2024 survey covering 38,500 households and 107,000 individuals, Chinese residents spend an average of 1 hour and 17 minutes daily on household chores; for those who actually perform them, the average rises to 1 hour and 59 minutes. Another study involving 6,271 participants from four countries found that people who purchase time report higher life satisfaction. Researchers also conducted real-world experiments showing that spending the same sum on time rather than physical goods results in greater immediate well-being.

Note

First, calculate your hourly wage by dividing your monthly after-tax income by the total number of hours you actually work each month. Then determine how much it would cost to outsource a particular chore. If the outsourcing fee is lower than your hourly wage and you truly plan to use the saved time for earning money or resting, then outsourcing makes sense. This guide provides a method rather than a definitive recommendation, since everyone’s hourly wage and outsourcing costs differ. Additionally, Whillans’ research measures how happy people feel after buying time, not how many hours they ultimately save.

On average, Chinese residents spend 5 hours and 37 minutes online each day. Among those who actually go online that day, the average rises to 6 hours and 3 minutes. In 2018, the same calculation showed only 2 hours and 42 minutes of usage — this is the highest figure in this section. Cutting just one hour per day adds up to 365 extra hours per year.

Cost

No cost at all. The actions take just a few minutes: turn off notifications, delete the apps, or set a daily time cap for them. The real challenge is resisting the urge to open them.

Benefit

The average daily online time for Chinese residents is 5 hours and 37 minutes; for those who actually use the internet that day it is 6 hours and 3 minutes. People who accessed the web on any given day make up 92.9% of the population. These figures are from 2024. In 2018, the average was only 2 hours and 42 minutes — again the highest number in this section. Removing one hour each day yields an extra 365 hours annually. According to the China Internet Network Information Center, as of June 2025 the average weekly online time for netizens is 30.6 hours, an increase of 1.9 hours over the previous six months. There are 1.068 billion short‑video users, accounting for 95.1% of all internet users.

Note

Online time includes work, study, and social interaction, so not all of it is wasted. It is rated C because no studies have measured exactly how much time is saved after imposing limits or how that time is subsequently used; we only have overall statistics. For the specific activity of “scrolling to see how others live”, a randomized trial has estimated both the time saved and the resulting change in mood; see Section 3, Item 20.

Americans aged 15 and older watch 2.6 hours of TV per day, which accounts for half of all their leisure time. In China, the average daily TV viewing time is 1 hour and 40 minutes; for people aged 75–84, it reaches 3 hours and 16 minutes. Switching to viewing information at scheduled times saves you all this time.

Cost

No monetary cost. The real challenge is breaking the habit of turning on the TV at random times; you might also miss some breaking news.

Benefit

Americans aged 15 and older watch 2.6 hours of TV daily. Their total leisure time is 5.2 hours, so TV viewing consumes half of it. These figures are from 2025. In China, the average daily TV viewing time is 1 hour and 40 minutes; for those aged 75–84, it is 3 hours and 16 minutes. These numbers date back to 2018.

Note

Only aggregate statistics are available. No studies have examined how the time saved by cutting back on TV and news viewing is actually used. The practice of viewing content at set times is based on the author’s personal experience.

Even many Word users with years of experience still rely on clicking toolbar icons. Experiments comparing different methods show that keyboard shortcuts are faster than both menus and icons. This is a one-time effort that pays off with every subsequent use. The longer you perform similar tasks, the greater the overall benefit.

Cost

There is no monetary cost. However, it requires a one-time investment of several to dozens of hours to learn. The initial learning phase can actually be slower than using a mouse.

Benefit

Research involving 251 experienced Word users revealed that most rarely utilize faster shortcuts, continuing to rely on toolbar icons. Controlled experiments confirmed that shortcuts are indeed the quickest method among menus, icons, and shortcuts themselves. The time saved accumulates gradually with each daily use. Those who perform similar tasks over extended periods gain the most from this practice.

Note

Focus on learning shortcuts for operations you use at least ten times daily; learning too many unnecessary shortcuts is counterproductive. It should be noted that the efficiency study involved only six participants, and the summary does not specify the exact number of seconds saved per operation.

The longer someone’s commute, the worse they tend to feel about their life. This loss in time and comfort isn’t compensated for by higher wages or better housing. Cutting one-way commute time by 30 minutes saves a full 5 hours each week.

Cost

This option is costly. You may end up paying higher rent or having to settle for a smaller living space. Moving itself also takes time and effort.

Benefit

On average, Chinese residents spend 50 minutes daily on transportation; among those who travel on a given day, the average is 1 hour and 2 minutes, according to 2024 data. Longitudinal studies in Germany show that people with longer commutes consistently report lower subjective well-being — meaning they feel their lives are worse. Again, this loss in time isn’t offset by any gain in income or housing quality. A comprehensive review of multiple studies confirms that longer commutes lead to greater dissatisfaction, regardless of the mode of transport used. Reducing one-way travel time by 30 minutes yields roughly 5 extra hours per week.

Note

Point of contention: Chatterjee et al., after analyzing various studies, argue that no consistent link exists between commute length and overall life satisfaction. They suggest that people can generally offset the downsides of long commutes by securing better jobs or housing. It’s also worth noting that transportation statistics include all trips, not just commuting, and that avoiding rush hour can also shorten travel time on the same route.