Dữ liệu đại diện — không có cuộc khảo sát trực tiếp nào về sự hối tiếc cho quyết định này. Tỷ lệ được lấy từ điểm hài lòng và dữ liệu rào cản tiếp cận thay vì câu hỏi trực tiếp về sự hối tiếc. Xem cảnh báo bên dưới.
Hối hận vì hành động
Thuê người dọn dẹp
9,0%
Không tồn tại khảo sát hối tiếc trực tiếp; chi tiêu để tiết kiệm thời gian giúp nâng cao mức hạnh phúc trung bình ở mọi mức thu nhập, nên hối tiếc-khi-hành-động được coi là thấp (đại lượng thay thế danh nghĩa về mức độ hài lòng cuộc sống, không phải tỷ lệ được khảo sát)
Người trưởng thành đang làm việc, Mỹ/Canada/Đan Mạch/Hà Lan
hồi cứu, không có khung thời gian cố định
Hối hận vì không hành động
Tự dọn dẹp
50%
~50% các hộ gia đình khá giả không chi một xu nào để thuê ngoài những công việc họ không thích dù họ đủ khả năng chi trả (đại lượng thay thế về hành vi không-sử-dụng, không phải khảo sát hối tiếc)
Triệu phú Hà Lan và người trưởng thành đang làm việc, 4 quốc gia
hồi cứu, không có khung thời gian cố định
% hối tiếc về lựa chọn này
Thuê người dọn dẹpTự dọn dẹp
9,0%50%
inaction dominates — Không hành động chiếm ưu thế — hầu hết hối tiếc vì đã không hành động.
Quyết định liên quan
Các quyết định tương tự về mặt ngữ nghĩa — cùng lĩnh vực, đánh đổi khác nhau.
Among Dutch millionaires — people for whom cost is irrelevant — just
under half spent nothing on outsourcing disliked tasks, according to
Whillans et al.’s PNAS study. That non-outsourcing fraction is the closest
available proxy for inaction in this domain: roughly half of those who
could easily afford to outsource cleaning choose not to. Importantly, the
paper does not report that non-outsourcers have lower life satisfaction —
it reports a positive association for those who do buy time, so the 50%
here is a behavioral non-use figure, not a measured regret rate. On the
action side, Whillans et al. surveyed 6,271 working adults across four
countries and found that those who spent on time-saving services reported
higher life satisfaction; a field experiment gave 60 adults $40 to spend
on a time-saving purchase one weekend and a material purchase the next,
and the time-saving weekend produced higher positive affect (mean 4.00
vs 3.71 on the SPANE scale, d=0.33). The benefit was not moderated by
income or wealth (Z=−0.35, P=0.729), and subsequent research found that
time-saving spending also improved relationship satisfaction regardless of
whether the specific purchase was practical or indulgent.
The paradox is that almost nobody acts on this. When 98 working adults were
asked how they would spend a $40 windfall, only 2% chose time-saving.
Among 818 Dutch millionaires — people for whom cost is irrelevant — nearly
half spent nothing on outsourcing disliked tasks in a typical month. Trübner
(2024) catalogued the barriers in a German sample of 1,479 couples: guilt
about perceived laziness, gendered expectations that housework is a domestic
duty, privacy concerns about strangers in the home, and discomfort with
anything resembling “servant culture.” These are psychological barriers, not
economic ones, and they track cleanly with Gilovich’s inaction-dominance
pattern: people forgo a well-documented happiness gain, and the status quo
persists because the cost of inaction is diffuse and invisible.
The caveat worth flagging is that this entry measures well-being and
behavior, not regret. The evidence shows that buying time tends to raise
happiness; it does not show that people who clean their own homes feel
worse off, and it certainly does not measure whether they regret the
choice — some genuinely prefer the routine, the exercise, or the sense of
control. The rates here are proxies, not direct survey findings, and the
ratio between the two sides should be read as a well-being-and-behavior
asymmetry rather than a regret asymmetry in the strict Gilovich sense. The directional finding
is clear: outsourcing time-draining tasks improves well-being for most people
who try it. Whether not doing so constitutes “regret” depends on how much
you trust revealed preferences over stated ones.
Nguồn: hành động
Sổ cái xác nhận
Mỗi con số dưới đây là những gì mỗi nguồn đã báo cáo, cùng với trích dẫn nguyên văn mà chúng tôi dựa vào và cách chúng tôi đưa ra con số của mình. Nhấp vào bất kỳ liên kết nào để xác minh trực tiếp.
1/2 nguồn được xác minh độc lập đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn
[1]PNAS / Whillans, Dunn, Smeets, Bekkers & Norton — Buying time promotes happiness
Được bình duyệt
In a field experiment (n=60), working adults reported greater end-of-day positive affect after a time-saving purchase (mean 4.00) than a material one (mean 3.71), t(59)=2.57, P=0.007, d=0.33; the benefit was not moderated by income or wealth (Z=-0.35, P=0.729)
Trích đoạn
“"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 time-saving purchase than on a material purchase."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2017-08-08
Truy cập
2026-04-26
Tính toán
Whillans et al. surveyed 6,271 adults across four countries and ran a field experiment with 60 working adults spending $40 on a time-saving vs a material purchase on consecutive weekends. The time-saving weekend produced higher positive affect (4.00 vs 3.71 on the SPANE, d=0.33), and the effect did not vary by income or wealth (Z=-0.35, P=0.729). The paper reports a positive well-being effect, not a regret rate or a "no-gain" fraction; the study did not survey regret about hiring cleaning help. The display rate is a well-being proxy, not a surveyed regret figure (see proxy_only and caveats). The study included cleaning, cooking, and errand outsourcing as time-saving categories.
[2]Harvard Business School Working Knowledge — Why Outsourcing Chores Is Good for Your Relationship
Đã xác minh
Nguồn tham khảo
Couples who spent money to save time reported greater relationship satisfaction regardless of whether the purchase was practical or fun
Trích đoạn
“"It didn't matter if they bought products or services or if they paid for a practical service like Instacart or a fun treat like gourmet takeout — they still reported greater relationship satisfaction if they spent money to save time."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2023-05-15
Truy cập
2026-04-26
Xác minh
Trích đoạn đã được tải lại độc lập và xác nhận đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn trong quá trình kiểm định căn cứ của chúng tôi.
Tính toán
HBS research building on Whillans's earlier work. Extends the finding from individual happiness to relationship satisfaction, strengthening the case that outsourcing domestic tasks produces broad well-being gains. The effect was consistent across income levels and purchase types.
Nguồn: không hành động
Sổ cái xác nhận
Mỗi con số dưới đây là những gì mỗi nguồn đã báo cáo, cùng với trích dẫn nguyên văn mà chúng tôi dựa vào và cách chúng tôi đưa ra con số của mình. Nhấp vào bất kỳ liên kết nào để xác minh trực tiếp.
[1]PNAS / Whillans, Dunn, Smeets, Bekkers & Norton — Buying time promotes happiness
Được bình duyệt
Just under half of the 818 surveyed Dutch millionaires — people for whom cost is no barrier — spent no money outsourcing disliked tasks; across samples, those who bought time reported greater life satisfaction
Trích đoạn
“"Despite the potential benefits of buying time, many respondents allocated no discretionary income to buying time, even when they could afford it: just under half of the 818 millionaires that we surveyed spent no money outsourcing disliked tasks."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2017-08-08
Truy cập
2026-04-26
Tính toán
The ~50% inaction display is anchored to a real BEHAVIORAL fraction: just under half of the 818 Dutch millionaires — people with no financial barrier — spent no money outsourcing disliked tasks. The paper does NOT report that non-outsourcers had lower life satisfaction; it reports a positive association for those who bought time. The display therefore states the measured construct (the non-outsourcing fraction among the financially able), not a surveyed regret rate. Many non-outsourcers genuinely prefer cleaning themselves, so this is a proxy, not direct regret (see proxy_only and caveats).
[2]International Journal of Consumer Studies / Trübner — Sociocultural barriers to outsourcing housework: Unraveling the non-use of domestic services
Được bình duyệt
Guilt, perceived laziness, and gendered norms are the primary sociocultural barriers preventing households from outsourcing housework even when they can afford it
Trích đoạn
“"Demand for paid domestic services is low, even for households with sufficient financial resources. Women are significantly more likely to be personal and complete rejectors of outsourcing than men, confirming expectations about gendered attitudes toward outsourcing."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2024-01-15
Truy cập
2026-04-26
Tính toán
Trübner (2024) surveyed 1,479 German cohabiting couples who had not used domestic services. Five distinct barrier profiles were identified, with guilt and perceived laziness as dominant factors. This explains why the inaction rate remains high even among affluent households — the barrier is psychological, not financial.
Lưu ý
PROXY WARNING: Neither rate is a direct regret measurement, and no published survey asks people whether they regret hiring (or not hiring) a cleaner. The Whillans PNAS study measured life satisfaction and positive affect from time-saving purchases generally (meal delivery, cleaning, errands), not cleaning in isolation. The 9% action rate is NOT a surveyed figure: the paper reports a positive well-being effect, not a "no-gain" or regret fraction, so the low action rate is a nominal placeholder for "buying time helped on average." The 50% inaction rate is a behavioral non-use fraction — just under half of the 818 Dutch millionaires spent nothing outsourcing disliked tasks despite being able to afford it. The paper does NOT report that these non-outsourcers had lower life satisfaction; equating "chose not to outsource" with "regret" overstates the evidence. proxy_only is set on this entry for that reason. No published survey was found that directly asks "do you regret hiring/ not hiring a cleaner?" Many people genuinely prefer doing their own housework and report no regret. The Trübner barriers study is German, not US, and cultural attitudes toward domestic help vary substantially. Self-selection bias is present on both sides: people who hire cleaners may be dispositionally happier, and people who refuse may value self- reliance in ways that offset any well-being cost. The 5.6:1 ratio should be read as a well-being asymmetry, not a regret asymmetry in the strict Gilovich sense. The primary well-being data are drawn from United States and Western European samples; satisfaction and regret rates in countries with different institutional structures — consumer norms, domestic labour costs, and attitudes toward hired help — may differ substantially.
