The Psychology of Time Poverty: Why More Hours Aren’t Always the Solution
In modern society, most of us have uttered the phrase, “If only I had an extra hour in my day.” When daylight saving time ends each fall, we briefly get that wish—yet many people still feel chronically short on time. This paradox reveals a fundamental truth about our relationship with time: the feeling of time poverty—having too much to do and not enough time—isn’t merely about the actual hours available to us.
Recent research reveals that time poverty is significantly more about perception than reality. The subjective experience of time—how rushed, fragmented, or pressured we feel—often matters more than the objective hours at our disposal. When our days are filled with constant interruptions, overwhelming to-do lists, and a lack of control over our schedules, we experience time poverty regardless of how many “free” hours we technically have. This explains why policies focused solely on regulating work hours often fail to alleviate feelings of time scarcity. As psychologist Xiaomin Sun and colleagues noted in the Journal of Happiness Studies, such approaches are important but insufficient when they don’t address our subjective sense of time. The consequences of time poverty are serious, with links to poor sleep quality, depression, and difficulties maintaining relationships.
To better understand this phenomenon, social scientists have worked to establish a “time poverty threshold”—similar to economic poverty lines—to determine how much free time people need for optimal well-being. A large study examining data from over 35,000 Americans found that between two and five hours of daily leisure time correlates with the highest levels of well-being. Both too little and too much free time were associated with reduced life satisfaction. However, UCLA psychologist Hal Hershfield notes an important nuance: the quality of free time matters tremendously. When people spend their leisure hours engaged in meaningful activities like hobbies or connecting with loved ones, the negative effects of “excessive” free time disappear entirely. The research suggested that anyone with fewer than two hours of daily leisure time would struggle—a hypothesis Hershfield’s team is currently investigating further in the United States.
Interestingly, when Sun and her collaborators analyzed China’s National Bureau of Statistics time-use survey of approximately 100,000 people, they discovered something counterintuitive: over half of respondents who reported feeling time-scarce actually had more than 1.8 hours of free time daily (their established threshold for time poverty). Conversely, more than a third of those with less than 1.8 hours of free time didn’t report feeling time poor. This discrepancy led researchers to investigate the factors that influence our subjective experience of time beyond just the quantity of hours available. Through detailed time-use studies, they found that high time pressure, intensity, and fragmentation all contributed significantly to feelings of time poverty, while experiencing “flow” or immersion in activities was associated with greater feelings of time wealth.
Addressing time poverty requires both individual strategies and broader societal changes. On a personal level, Hershfield recommends conducting daily time audits to track activities, their duration, and how you feel afterward. This simple practice often reveals surprising insights—like discovering that hours spent scrolling social media leave you feeling that you’ve wasted time. These audits help people identify changes they can implement to improve their relationship with time. However, individual efforts alone aren’t enough. Systemic changes are equally important. Workplaces could help by minimizing unnecessary interruptions and implementing policies that respect employees’ need for unbroken concentration and rest, such as sanctioning power naps or creating interruption-free work periods.
The research ultimately points to a crucial insight about our relationship with time: simply adding more hours to the day wouldn’t necessarily solve our feelings of time scarcity. As Sun emphasizes, “Even if a day were extended by one hour, if the quality and intensity of people’s time use do not change, people’s subjective feeling of time poverty would not improve.” The solution isn’t just more time—it’s better time. By understanding and addressing both the subjective experience and objective reality of our time, we can work toward a healthier relationship with the hours we have, rather than wishing for hours we don’t.
