賽林·馬爾科奇　藍嵐

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.”

大家的時間好像永遠都不夠用——睡覺沒時間，玩耍沒時間，做飯沒時間，運動也沒時間。

有個比較新的詞用來描述這種感覺：時間饑荒，即“手有活兒而時不足”的感覺。

我們覺得時間就那么點兒，為了合理安排，采用的一大策略便是“日程安排”。事實上，依靠日程本之類的管理工具的人與日俱增。最近兩項調(diào)查顯示，51%的受訪者表示經(jīng)常使用日程安排類應(yīng)用，63%的辦公室職員則認為日程安排“非常重要”。

人們相信安排日程能夠提高效率：分配好時間，你的一天便會理順成一連串的約見、會議和拜訪，同時還會為其他活動或任務(wù)留出空間。

然而，加布里埃拉·托涅托、史蒂夫·諾利斯和我做了8項研究后發(fā)現(xiàn)日程安排有時會適得其反——實際上，效率會因此而下滑。

約見迫近，時間 “縮緊”

日程安排的弊端絕大部分在于，我們對會議或者約見會念念不忘。一想到會議或者電話將如期而至，就更覺得手頭的活兒沒時間干了。

在一項研究中，我們詢問學(xué)術(shù)會議的參會者一小時后是否去聽會議的主席致辭。有表示要去的，也有表示不去的。計劃要去的人告訴我們，他們覺得演講前的一小時比平時要短一些。

在另一項研究中，我們讓一半的受試者想象一小時后有朋友來訪，而讓另一半想象一小時后沒什么安排。我們征詢了所有受試者，“主觀上”他們認為自己可以在這同一小時內(nèi)讀多少分鐘的書。

想象有朋友來訪的人回答在這一小時里僅有40分鐘可以用來讀書。想象沒什么安排的人感覺自己的讀書時間能有49分鐘。

因此，隨著即將要做的事情迫近，人們似乎就會覺得手頭的時間縮水了。

原因何在？

我們認為，約見到來之前，無論是為了做好心理準備還是單純因為害怕，人們的注意力都會轉(zhuǎn)移到這件事上面。一旦轉(zhuǎn)移，約見仿佛就觸手可及了。結(jié)果我們感到現(xiàn)在和安排好的事情中間間隔變短，時間就不夠用了。

盡量……少做？

但是說到底，安排的事情到來前的那段時間長度是不會改變的。

所以就算覺得“時間縮水”也無所謂，對吧？事實并非如此。這種感覺會在做決定時產(chǎn)生影響。

眾所周知，物以稀為貴，越是珍貴，越不想舍棄。

時間也是如此。如果時間有限，人們就不太可能會利用它，即便利用這些時間是有益處的。

所以在另一項研究中，我們給受試者一張空白日程表，要求他們填上第二天計劃要做的事（包括準備時間和過渡時間），越詳細越好。據(jù)此我們就能準確計算出他們在兩件事之間空余出來的時間。

在接下來的研究中，我們給予受試者選擇的機會，從以下兩種網(wǎng)絡(luò)學(xué)習(xí)中二選一：一種時長30分鐘，能掙2.5美元，另一種時長45分鐘，報酬為5美元。每一種都會在一小時的區(qū)間內(nèi)進行。

作為研究者，為受試者選擇這一小時的區(qū)間有我們的策略。我們告知一半的受試者，網(wǎng)絡(luò)學(xué)習(xí)將在他們原先規(guī)劃好做某事的時段中的一小時內(nèi)進行。對于另一半受試者，我們告訴他們，網(wǎng)絡(luò)學(xué)習(xí)完成后有半小時緩沖時間，之后可以去做原先規(guī)劃好的事。

我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，第一組受試者雖然有更多的時間完成學(xué)習(xí)，但是他們選擇耗時較長但獲利較多的那種學(xué)習(xí)類型的幾率更低。

在另一項研究中，我們想要了解的是，如果只是提醒某件事即將到來，是否會產(chǎn)生類似的效果。

在一項不相關(guān)的研究開始前，我們告訴一半受試者，他們有5分鐘自由活動時間。我們告訴另一半受試者，他們還有5分鐘，之后研究就要“開始”了。

對第二組受試者來說，“開始做某事”的提醒足以改變他們的行為。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在這短短的5分鐘內(nèi)，他們要么回復(fù)電子郵件，要么查看社交媒體，從事的活動顯著減少了。

其實你并沒有那么“饑荒”

有些人可能認為，產(chǎn)生“時間饑荒”的原因是手上的活兒太多，而時間卻不足。

有時的確如此。但我們的研究表明，這種錯覺和我們認為可以用自己所掌握的時間做什么息息相關(guān)。換句話說，認識到是自己導(dǎo)致了“時間饑荒”這一點非常重要。

如果你喜歡安排和計劃每一天，這里有個小竅門可供參考：可以把各件事或各個任務(wù)安排得一氣呵成，這樣就剩下大塊的未安排時間。這段時間無人打擾，更顯悠長，尤其是后面不再有計劃好的事情迫近的時候。

提醒自己“時間并不比感到的那般短暫”是個有效的方法。即使覺得時間不夠，仍舊可以開啟任務(wù)，然后遲一些完成它。

亞里士多德不是說過嗎：“好的開始是成功的一半?！?/p>

（譯者為“《英語世界》杯”翻譯大賽獲獎選手，單位：廣西民族大學(xué)）