Proximity of snacks to beverages increases food consumption in the workplace: A field study.

In an effort to bolster employee satisfaction, many employers provide free snacks at the office. Unfortunately, keeping employees happy can conflict with the goal of keeping them healthy, since increased snacking at work can contribute to overeating and obesity. Building on the growing body of research in choice architecture, we tested one factor that might influence snack consumption without impacting satisfaction: the relative distance between snacks and beverages. In a large field study at Google, we measured snack consumption when snacks were closer to or farther from beverages. We found that employees who used the beverage station closer to the snack station were more likely to take a snack- the likelihood of snacking increased from 12% to 23% for men and from 13% to 17% for women when the beverage station closest to the snack station was used. These results imply that employers and even families could reduce snack consumption easily, cheaply, and without backlash, by increasing the relative distance between beverages and snacks.

Temporal view of the costs and benefits of self-deception.

Researchers have documented many cases in which individuals rationalize their regrettable actions. Four experiments examine situations in which people go beyond merely explaining away their misconduct to actively deceiving themselves. We find that those who exploit opportunities to cheat on tests are likely to engage in self-deception, inferring that their elevated performance is a sign of intelligence. This short-term psychological benefit of self-deception, however, can come with longer-term costs: when predicting future performance, participants expect to perform equally well-a lack of awareness that persists even when these inflated expectations prove costly. We show that although people expect to cheat, they do not foresee self-deception, and that factors that reinforce the benefits of cheating enhance self-deception. More broadly, the findings of these experiments offer evidence that debates about the relative costs and benefits of self-deception are informed by adopting a temporal view that assesses the cumulative impact of self-deception over time.

Giving time gives you time.

Results of four experiments reveal a counterintuitive solution to the common problem of feeling that one does not have enough time: Give some of it away. Although the objective amount of time people have cannot be increased (there are only 24 hours in a day), this research demonstrates that people's subjective sense of time affluence can be increased. We compared spending time on other people with wasting time, spending time on oneself, and even gaining a windfall of "free" time, and we found that spending time on others increases one's feeling of time affluence. The impact of giving time on feelings of time affluence is driven by a boosted sense of self-efficacy. Consequently, giving time makes people more willing to commit to future engagements despite their busy schedules.

The slow decay and quick revival of self-deception.

People demonstrate an impressive ability to self-deceive, distorting misbehavior to reflect positively on themselves-for example, by cheating on a test and believing that their inflated performance reflects their true ability. But what happens to self-deception when self-deceivers must face reality, such as when taking another test on which they cannot cheat? We find that self-deception diminishes over time only when self-deceivers are repeatedly confronted with evidence of their true ability (Study 1); this learning, however, fails to make them less susceptible to future self-deception (Study 2).