赛林·马尔科奇　蓝岚

It can seem like there’s never enough time—not enough for sleep and not enough for play， not enough for cooking and not enough for exercise.

There’s a relatively new term to describe this feeling： time famine， or the sensation of having too much to do without enough time to do it.

In order to structure what little time we feel we have， one strategy we deploy is scheduling. In fact， reliance on organizational tools like daily planners has been on the rise. In two recent surveys， 51 percent of respondents said they regularly used their calendar app， while 63 percent of office workers consider calendars “very important.”

The idea is that scheduling will make you more efficient： When you allocate your time， it organizes your day into a series of appointments， meetings and calls， while blocking off free time for other activities or tasks.

But in a series of eight studies， Gabriela Tonietto， Steve Nowlis and I found that scheduling can sometimes backfire—and actually make us less productive.

An appointment approaches—and time “shrinks”

Much of scheduling’s downside has to do with the anticipation of a meeting or appointment. When we know a scheduled meeting or phone call is looming， it can make us feel like we have less time to do what we need to do.

In one study， we asked attendees of an academic conference whether they would go to the presidential address taking place about an hour later. Some said they would， and others said they wouldn’t. Those who planned to attend the address reported that the hour leading up to it felt shorter.

In another study， we had half of the participants imagine that a friend would be coming over in an hour， while the other half were told to imagine they had no plans. We asked all of the participants how many minutes they “subjectively” felt like they could spend reading during that same hour.

Those who were told to imagine that a friend would be coming over reported that the hour leading up to the visit had only 40 usable minutes for reading. Those who were told to imagine they had no plans felt as if they had 49 minutes to read.

So the presence of an upcoming activity seems to have shrunk how much time people felt they had to do something.

Why might this happen？

We believe that when there’s an appointment looming， we direct our attention to it， whether it’s mentally preparing for it or simply dreading it. This makes the future appointment feel more substantial; as a result， the time interval leading up to the scheduled activity feels limited and insufficient.

Free to do… less？

But in the end， you still have the same amount of time leading up to a scheduled event.

So feeling like you have less time shouldn’t really matter， right？ But it does. The feeling by itself can influence what people decide to do.

We know that when something is scarce， people consider it more valuable and are less willing to part with it.

The same is true for time. If time feels limited， people are less likely to use it—even when it’s in their best interest.

So in another study， we gave participants an empty calendar for the next day and asked them to fill it up， as accurately as possible， with what they had scheduled （including preparation or transition times）. This allowed us to correctly calculate how much free time they had in between each planned event.

We then gave participants an opportunity to participate in a second study. Everyone made a choice between participating in a 30-minute online study that would earn them $2.50， or signing up for a 45-minute online study to receive $5.00. Each would take place during an hourlong window.

On our end， we strategically chose the hourlong window for the participants. We told half of them that the study would take place within an hour of an event they’d scheduled. The other half would take the study during a time period that concluded with a half-hour cushion before their scheduled event.

We found that participants in the first group were much less likely to choose the longer but more lucrative study—despite having more than enough time to complete the study.

In yet another study， we wondered if the mere reminder of an upcoming event could have a similar effect.

Before beginning an unrelated study， we told half of the participants that they would have about five minutes to do whatever they wanted. We told the other half they had about five minutes before we would “get started.”

For those in the latter group， the simple mention of “starting something” was enough to change their behavior. We found that they engaged in significantly fewer activities， whether it was answering emails or checking social media， in this short five-minute period.

You’re less famished than you think

Some might think that time famine arises because they have too much to do and not enough time to do it.

While this may certainly be the case at times， our results suggest that the fault also lies in our own perception of what we feel can be done with the time we have. In other words， it’s important to realize that we might be contributing to our time famine.

If you love scheduling and planning out your days， a trick could be to schedule events or tasks back-to-back， which leaves you with larger chunks of unscheduled time. Several uninterrupted hours of unscheduled time will feel longer， especially if there’s nothing scheduled looming.

It can be effective to remind yourself that time isn’t as short as it feels. Even if you don’t think you’ll have enough time to complete something， you can still start a task and finish it later.

As Aristotle once said， “Well begun is half done.”

大家的时间好像永远都不够用——睡覺没时间，玩耍没时间，做饭没时间，运动也没时间。

有个比较新的词用来描述这种感觉：时间饥荒，即“手有活儿而时不足”的感觉。

我们觉得时间就那么点儿，为了合理安排，采用的一大策略便是“日程安排”。事实上，依靠日程本之类的管理工具的人与日俱增。最近两项调查显示，51%的受访者表示经常使用日程安排类应用，63%的办公室职员则认为日程安排“非常重要”。

人们相信安排日程能够提高效率：分配好时间，你的一天便会理顺成一连串的约见、会议和拜访，同时还会为其他活动或任务留出空间。

然而，加布里埃拉·托涅托、史蒂夫·诺利斯和我做了8项研究后发现日程安排有时会适得其反——实际上，效率会因此而下滑。

约见迫近，时间 “缩紧”

日程安排的弊端绝大部分在于，我们对会议或者约见会念念不忘。一想到会议或者电话将如期而至，就更觉得手头的活儿没时间干了。

在一项研究中，我们询问学术会议的参会者一小时后是否去听会议的主席致辞。有表示要去的，也有表示不去的。计划要去的人告诉我们，他们觉得演讲前的一小时比平时要短一些。

在另一项研究中，我们让一半的受试者想象一小时后有朋友来访，而让另一半想象一小时后没什么安排。我们征询了所有受试者，“主观上”他们认为自己可以在这同一小时内读多少分钟的书。

想象有朋友来访的人回答在这一小时里仅有40分钟可以用来读书。想象没什么安排的人感觉自己的读书时间能有49分钟。

因此，随着即将要做的事情迫近，人们似乎就会觉得手头的时间缩水了。

原因何在？

我们认为，约见到来之前，无论是为了做好心理准备还是单纯因为害怕，人们的注意力都会转移到这件事上面。一旦转移，约见仿佛就触手可及了。结果我们感到现在和安排好的事情中间间隔变短，时间就不够用了。

尽量……少做？

但是说到底，安排的事情到来前的那段时间长度是不会改变的。

所以就算觉得“时间缩水”也无所谓，对吧？事实并非如此。这种感觉会在做决定时产生影响。

众所周知，物以稀为贵，越是珍贵，越不想舍弃。

时间也是如此。如果时间有限，人们就不太可能会利用它，即便利用这些时间是有益处的。

所以在另一项研究中，我们给受试者一张空白日程表，要求他们填上第二天计划要做的事（包括准备时间和过渡时间），越详细越好。据此我们就能准确计算出他们在两件事之间空余出来的时间。

在接下来的研究中，我们给予受试者选择的机会，从以下两种网络学习中二选一：一种时长30分钟，能挣2.5美元，另一种时长45分钟，报酬为5美元。每一种都会在一小时的区间内进行。

作为研究者，为受试者选择这一小时的区间有我们的策略。我们告知一半的受试者，网络学习将在他们原先规划好做某事的时段中的一小时内进行。对于另一半受试者，我们告诉他们，网络学习完成后有半小时缓冲时间，之后可以去做原先规划好的事。

我们发现，第一组受试者虽然有更多的时间完成学习，但是他们选择耗时较长但获利较多的那种学习类型的几率更低。

在另一项研究中，我们想要了解的是，如果只是提醒某件事即将到来，是否会产生类似的效果。

在一项不相关的研究开始前，我们告诉一半受试者，他们有5分钟自由活动时间。我们告诉另一半受试者，他们还有5分钟，之后研究就要“开始”了。

对第二组受试者来说，“开始做某事”的提醒足以改变他们的行为。我们发现，在这短短的5分钟内，他们要么回复电子邮件，要么查看社交媒体，从事的活动显著减少了。

其实你并没有那么“饥荒”

有些人可能认为，产生“时间饥荒”的原因是手上的活儿太多，而时间却不足。

有时的确如此。但我们的研究表明，这种错觉和我们认为可以用自己所掌握的时间做什么息息相关。换句话说，认识到是自己导致了“时间饥荒”这一点非常重要。

如果你喜欢安排和计划每一天，这里有个小窍门可供参考：可以把各件事或各个任务安排得一气呵成，这样就剩下大块的未安排时间。这段时间无人打扰，更显悠长，尤其是后面不再有计划好的事情迫近的时候。

提醒自己“时间并不比感到的那般短暂”是个有效的方法。即使觉得时间不够，仍旧可以开启任务，然后迟一些完成它。

亚里士多德不是说过吗：“好的开始是成功的一半。”

（译者为“《英语世界》杯”翻译大赛获奖选手，单位：广西民族大学）