TIME

The 1 Weird Reason You’re Tipping More

TIME.com stock photos Money Dollar Bills
Elizabeth Renstrom for TIME

These tricks businesses use could make you more likely to tip

If you buy a cup of coffee or lunch and your server pulls out an iPad, pay attention: You could wind up leaving a higher tip without even realizing it.

When software research company Software Advice surveyed consumers who use iPads or similar devices to buy food and drink, it found that the use of iPads increases the amount many people tip when they pay. More than four in 10 consumers say being in close proximity to their server at the time of the transaction can prompt them to leave a tip when they otherwise might not have.

What’s more, nearly 30% of respondents say they would be more likely to tip if they had to tap a button that says “no tip,” a feature many establishments use.

“This is especially more prevalent at places like coffee shops or at food trucks where the person taking your card is standing right in front of you,” says Justin Guinn, retail market researcher at Software Advice. “People might feel awkward pressing a ‘no tip’ button with the server or cashier looking right at them, waiting for them to make a choice. There’s an undeniable guilty feeling,” he says.

Others also have observed this phenomenon in restaurants that use digital tipping, and even in taxi fleets that have been converted to accept credit cards via touch screens in the back seat.

“I think there’s some kind of a casino effect,” Manny Pena, owner of a New York City cafe. tells Bon Appetit magazine. “You don’t comprehend that it’s real money.”

And in some cases, establishments take advantage of the addition of iPads to tweak the standard tip — rather than offer customers a range with 15% at the midpoint, 15% or even 18% might be the starting point. Reflexively hitting the center option without thinking about it could lead to paying a few percentage points more.

When coffee giant Starbucks added the ability for a customer to leave a tip to their barista using the payment function on their mobile app, they included dollar amounts up to $2 — which adds up to a whopping 50% tip even if you’re paying $4 for your caffeine fix.

It could be guilt at work, or it could be the convenience of paying with a couple of taps, according to Guinn.

“Whether or not patrons are ‘feeling the pressure’ to tip more because the server is standing next to them certainly seems to be a factor in the amount they’re leaving,” he says. “However, since the iPad is streamlining the ordering and paying process overall, it could be the convenience of the iPad itself.”

 

 

MONEY Sports

2015 Super Bowl’s Most Fun, Stupid, and Absurd Prop Bets

150128_EM_SBBets
Steven Puetzer—Getty Images

If you've been itching to place a random quirky sports wager that really has nothing to do with sports, wins, or losses, then step right up to the gimmicky world of Super Bowl prop bets.

The Super Bowl is on Sunday. Who are you picking in the coin toss? What’s the likelihood of hearing some variation of the phrase “deflated balls” on air during the game? How about your take on Katy Perry’s choice of outfits during the halftime shows? The odds favor skirt, but you’ll make more money if you bet she wears pants and she does—and you’ll really clean up if you guess right that she dons a whipped cream bikini (18/1 odds).

Known as “prop” bets—short for proposition—these kinds of quirky novelty wagers only tangentially related to the game are increasingly popular during the Super Bowl. For example, the Westgate Las Vegas Sportsbook offers roughly 350 different kinds of bets related to this year’s Super Bowl. The Bovada sportsbook has hundreds more bizarre betting options, many involving events far away from the football world, such as whether the Dow Jones Industrial Average will be up or down the day after the game, and whether or not Punxsutawney Phil will see his shadow on Groundhog Day.

In most cases, gamblers can’t pretend to have genuine insight as to what’s going to really happen in these silly scenarios, so winning a bet is like correctly picking the flip of a coin (which you can wager on too, naturally). You can not only bet on whether the Super Bowl opening coin toss lands on heads or tails, but on which team will win the coin toss, and whether the team that wins the coin toss will ultimately win the game.

The history of Super Bowl prop bets dates back to 1985, when the Chicago Bears gargantuan defensive lineman William “The Refrigerator” Perry was used during the season as a running back in goal line situations, and his popularity led to a quirky bet concerning whether he’d score a touchdown during the Super Bowl. (He did.) Countless absurd bets have followed, such as the proposition in 2013 as to whether any players will be arrested in the lead-up to the game, and whether or not the announcers at last year’s Super Bowl would say the word “marijuana” during the telecast. (The game concerned teams from two states where recreational marijuana sales became legal in 2014.)

By some reckoning, roughly one-third of all Super Bowl wagers aren’t about basics like the over/under or which team will win, but are prop bets like those cited above. Why are people interested in betting on such gimmicky nonsense?

Bruce Svare, a psychology professor at SUNY-Albany who studies sports and addiction, says that there isn’t much research regarding prop bets, at least partially because the phenomenon is so new and, for now at least, largely limited to the Super Bowl. “What I can tell you is that the gambling industry is willing to devise anything to bring more money their way in profits,” Svare said via email. “Proposition betting is probably very popular because gamblers seek frequent and immediate action and gratification.”

In fact, the strangeness and novelty of these gimmicky bets is likely part of the allure. “It is well known that novelty can also drive biochemical events in the brain that may lead to increased interest and ultimately greater vulnerability to addiction for some individuals,” Svare said.

Among the 2015 Super Bowl’s silliest prop bets, the subjects for wagering include:

Bill Belichick’s Fashion and Facial Expressions
In a bet involving the color of hoodie worn during the game by the New England Patriots coach, gray is the favorite, while blue and red are the underdogs. Place a $100 bet on gray, and if you’re right, you win $50. Another bet involves the odds of the surly, ultra-serious coach actually smiling on camera during the game.

Meaningless Game Statistics
You can bet on the total yardage of all made field goals during the game (over/under: 111.5 yards), whether or not the first kickoff results in a touchback, the length of the game’s shortest touchdown (over/under 1.5 yards), and if the game will decided by exactly 3 points, among other options.

The Announcers
You can wager on the number of times halftime performer Katy Perry will be mentioned on air during the first half of the game, as well as how many times the announcers will say “deflated balls” (over/under: 2.5) during the telecast.

Other Sports
For instance, you can bet whether there will be more goals in an NHL that day (perhaps Coyotes-Canadiens or Blues-Capitals) than there are touchdowns scored in the Super Bowl by the Patriots and Seahawks. Other bets involve Barclay’s Premier League Soccer (will Cristiano Ronaldo score more goals than Marshawn Lynch has touchdowns?) and the NBA (Will the Warriors’ Stephen Curry make more 3-pointers than there are made field goals during the Super Bowl?).

Stuff That Has Nothing to Do With Any Sports
In addition to one-air mentions of Katy Perry’s name, gamblers can place bets on what songs she’ll sing, whether she’ll wear pants, shorts, or a skirt, and whether or not singer Idina Menzel will omit at least one word in her rendition of the National Anthem before the game.

Marshawn Lynch’s Crotch
The Seahawks’ running back was fined $20,000 recently for grabbing his crotch to celebrate a touchdown against the Green Bay Packers, and he was fined $100,000 earlier this season for not speaking to reporters. Ironically, the NFL has been selling photos of Lynch’s crotch-grab celebration for $150 a pop. What does any of this have to do with betting on the Super Bowl? Well, gamblers can bet on whether Lynch will grab his crotch in the game after scoring a touchdown—a $100 bet that the crass move will indeed happen will pay $400.

The tacticians out there will notice that Lynch made a rare media appearance this week in order to avoid being hit with a $500,000 fine by the NFL. That may indicate he’s not keen on getting fined again, and therefore would make the case that Lynch wouldn’t make an obscene gesture during the Super Bowl. To break down this proposition further … oh, who are we kidding? This is a wager about a guy grabbing his crotch. If you’re betting on this, you’re not thinking about it too seriously. We hope.

MONEY psychology of money

The Only 3 Things You Need to Know About Money and Happiness

happy and sad piggy banks
Sharon Dominick—Getty Images

The final word on whether money truly makes people happier still eludes us. But here's what we know so far.

Maybe you’ve watched Citizen Kane recently—or just heard the truism that “money doesn’t buy happiness.” Either way, you may not be surprised by a new study showing that more income doesn’t seem to make people more content.

The findings, by researchers at the University of British Columbia and Michigan State University, do come with a twist, however: While more cash doesn’t increase joy, it does decrease sadness. “Having more money provides more options for dealing with adversity,” explain authors Elizabeth Dunn, Kostadin Kushlev, and Richard Lucas. “Wealthier people may feel a greater sense of control than poorer people when difficult situations arise.”

So, for example, a leaking roof might be annoying for a few days if you’re rich, but a months-long ordeal that can cripple you physically, financially, and emotionally if you’re poor. Makes sense, right?

Problem is, studies about the relationship between money and happiness seem to be a dime a dozen these days, and their headline conclusions don’t always line up. (Several respected economists, in fact, claim to have found a positive correlation between money and happiness.)

So who’s right? Does it make sense to follow the money in pursuit of happiness, or not? As it turns out, a lot of the research that seems contradictory on the surface is actually complementary when you dig a little deeper. Here are three key lessons from across the literature:

1. Money increases certain types of happiness more than others.

About four years ago, Princeton researchers made headlines with a new study showing that happiness increases along with income up until $75,000, after which point it plateaus. More recently, a pair of University of Michigan professors found that, actually, more money means more happiness without bound.

At face value, these findings might sound at odds, but the seeming contradiction arises from the fact that the researchers used different definitions of “happiness.” Specifically, the 2010 Princeton study measured so-called daily happiness (“How was your day yesterday?”) while the Michigan folks looked at overall assessments of satisfaction (“How do you feel about your life?”). Those are very different questions, and reveal different insights.

While the newest study also used a “daily” metric to calculate happiness, it went further by asking for a full narrative about each day and how subjects felt during three activities. What the new research revealed, says Kushlev, is that what appeared to be happiness in the Princeton study might be better described as a lack of sadness. “When an even more fine-grained measure of happiness is used, no relationship between income and happiness exists,” he says.

Nobel-prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman, who co-authored the 2010 Princeton study, says these new findings don’t refute his so much as they measure contentment—or a lack thereof—from a different angle. After all, it comes down to how one views that $75,000 ceiling on happiness: Financial difficulties get harder and harder as your income descends in the five-figure realm.

“We also found the same effect of poverty on happiness,” says Kahneman.

In short, money seems to make you happier about your life overall—if not about your day—and, at the very least, softens the pain of bad luck.

2. If money can’t buy happiness, happiness just might generate money.

It’s important to remember that what we know about money and happiness is not based on experimental science (the conniving businessmen in Trading Places may have been okay with human experimentation, but academics aren’t). As such, money and happiness have been shown to be merely correlated, not causally connected.

And most of the money/happiness researchers acknowledge that their conclusions can almost always be explained in other ways. In fact, the authors of the new study posit an alternate explanation for their findings: It may be that less money doesn’t cause more sadness, but that more sadness causes less money.

That is, they write, “people who are predisposed to feel sad may… be less likely to maintain the effort necessary to find a better paying job.”

3. You can control the impact of money on your happiness.

As noted above, for every study about the relationship between money and happiness, another identifies exceptions to the rule. Some even show that many super-rich people—23% of them, according to one survey—are overwhelmed by constant financial stress (not to mention even wilder anxieties that members of the middle class might have trouble imagining).

The takeaway? Just focus on simple strategies for getting the most happiness out of the money you already have. Some insights you should consider:

  • Studies show you’ll get more contentment from putting cash toward experiences (like vacations) than material things (like a new TV).
  • Spending on other people actually generates more happiness than splurging on yourself.
  • Likewise, budgeting time to build social connections is a smarter happiness “investment” than making and spending money, research suggests.
  • Lending out possessions can help you enjoy them more once you get them back.
  • It’s best not to focus on money too much. While making more of it might have obvious benefits, obsessing over it stops you from savoring many important aspects of your life.

Read more about money and happiness:

MONEY consumer psychology

Panic Shopping! How a Blizzard Turns Us into Irrational Hoarders at the Grocery Store

A long line of shoppers wait beside mostly-empty shelves in the bread aisle of a grocery store, as people stocked up on items ahead of an approaching snowstorm, in Alexandria, Virginia, USA, 12 February 2014.
A long line of shoppers wait beside mostly-empty shelves in the bread aisle of a grocery store, as people stocked up on items ahead of an approaching snowstorm, in Alexandria, Virginia, USA, 12 February 2014. Michael Reynolds—epa/Corbis

Weather forecasts aren't nearly as reliable as the reaction by shoppers when a bad storm has been predicted. And by reaction we mean overreaction.

Almost exactly a year ago, supermarkets cashed in as shoppers rushed in and ransacked store shelves in anticipation of snowy weather and the polar vortex’s subzero temperatures hitting a broad swath of the country. This week, it’s largely the same story in the Northeast, what with a historic blizzard said to be threatening New England and much of the Mid-Atlantic region.

Over the weekend, the panic hoarding began, with shoppers emptying grocery store shelves and grabbing every last loaf of bread, carton of eggs, and bottle of milk in sight. On Sunday, shoppers at one New Jersey supermarket reported it being nearly impossible to find a parking spot outside the store, while inside the scene was one of empty coolers where milk used to be, employees fighting through crowds to restock shelves, and endless lines snaking away from cash registers. Likewise, shoppers have been sharing photos of the crazy mob scenes over the weekend inside grocery stores in Boston, New York City, and elsewhere with #Snowmaggedon2015, #Blizzardof2015, or whatever your preferred nickname is for the storm.

By now, this kind of pre-storm mad rush at the supermarket is to be expected. Heck, it’s far more reliable than the actual weather forecasts ever are. And to some extent, this behavior is reasonable. We’re relentlessly instructed to take precautions, prepare for the worst, go the route of better safe than sorry, and … you get the gist. You don’t want to be stuck in a blizzard without a shovel or enough food to last for a few days, after all.

Yet, as with so many other things involving human beings, there’s a tendency to go completely overboard. What starts out as a prudent and sensible shopping excursion can quickly devolve into a frenzied, agitated exercise in hoarding at an overcrowded supermarket or hardware store, as the ugly, primal side of humanity rises to the surface.

During the polar vortex of early 2014, for instance, some supermarket customers reported that meat and bread were swiped from their shopping carts while their backs were turned. Ever since Superstorm Sandy left gas stations without gas and led to some instances of price gouging where gas was available, drivers have been known to flock to the pumps to fill up when a big storm is in the forecast. Far more often than not, of course, it’s wholly unnecessary to wait in line for 30 minutes or longer just to top off your gas tank.

What is it, then, that pushes us over the edge? Why do shoppers head out to the store in preparation of some snow and perhaps a couple days without power, and then they (OK—we) wind up hoarding all manner of goods as if preparing for the apocalypse?

Part of the explanation is mob mentality. When we see others streaming into stores and snatching up perishable goods by the cartload, we feel pressure to do the same. Perhaps, we think, these crazed shoppers all around us know something we don’t? It’s easy to see how this mentality snowballs—excuse the pun—when an epic blizzard is expected. This kind of thinking also pushes consumers into the realm of irrationality on days like Black Friday, when the bustle of crowds and competition causes people to overreact and buy things they wouldn’t have had there not been dozens of shoppers fighting to get their hands on some supposedly hot, must-have holiday purchase.

Consumer psychologist Kit Yarrow, an author and frequent TIME and MONEY contributor, explained via email that no matter if it’s Black Friday or the day before a blizzard or hurricane is about to hit, when crowds descend on stores we essentially revert to cavemen. “Clearly we’re responding to emotions and crowds, and our brains are a few steps behind,” said Yarrow. What else could explain the act of rampaging through the supermarket and “greedily grabbing the last can of Spam”?

“It starts with a normal impulse to stock up on things that might not be available for a few days,” Yarrow said. “Panic hits when the stores are jammed with other shoppers and the shelves look a little bare. It’s not so much a thought as it is an impulse that hits, and it’s associated with the caveman parts of our brain that take over when we perceive we might be in physical danger. We are prewired to fight for food when we sense that resources are scarce.”

Afterwards, we’re likely to look back on our behavior with puzzlement, and perhaps embarrassment. “Shoppers are going to find that canned food in the back of their pantries someday and wonder what they were thinking,” said Yarrow. “The fact is, they really weren’t thinking. Primal brain took over.”

Try to keep this in mind when, inevitably, the next “historic” storm is on the horizon and your supermarket seems to have been invaded by hoarding barbarian masses. By then, however, it’ll probably be too late. You’ll be in the store, not thinking, and instead following the primal impulse to race to get the last loaf of bread before it’s gone.

Speaking of which, anyone have any good recipes that involve Spam? Somehow, I have a bunch in the pantry, though I don’t remember even buying them.

TIME Money

Why You Should Never Buy Stuff When You’re Sad

TIME.com stock photos Money Dollar Bills
Elizabeth Renstrom for TIME

When retail therapy backfires

If you lose out on a plum assignment or get passed over for a promotion, your first tendency might be to head to the mall or click over to Amazon for a pick-me-up in the form of some discretionary splurging. It’s a common response, but a new study says it’s not the best one.

In fact, researchers warn that those purchases could leave you feeling worse about yourself, not to mention leaving a hole in your wallet as well as make you less resistant to future temptation.

A new study in the Journal of Consumer Research finds uncovers some interesting findings about how we cope with failures. A big personal or professional disappointment disrupts how we see ourselves, and we often respond unconsciously. Say you get passed over for a big promotion. You might go out and buy the luxury watch or designer handbag you were going to reward yourself with anyway, as if to say, “See? I don’t need them to look successful,” in an attempt to bolster your bruised ego.

But there’s a catch: The researchers suggest that, instead of cheering you up, anything you buy that’s associated with whatever you’re trying to forget actually just serves to remind you of that flub or failure. Instead of being a consolation prize, it acts as a trigger that makes you feel even worse, chips away at your self-control and even impairs your ability to focus on completing difficult tasks.

In experiments, subjects were asked to think about a past intellectual failure, then choose a copy of brainy-sounding Scientific American magazine. Afterwards, they reported that selecting the magazine made them dwell on that past incident when they felt dumb. When researchers offered these subjects chocolate candy, they found that those negative feelings led to lower self-control, with subjects less able to resist the offer of junk food.

“After experiencing a setback in one area of their life, consumers might be better off boosting their sense of self in a different area of their life,” the researchers say. For instance (if you must indulge in retail therapy) they suggest following up an experience that makes you feel dumb with a purchase intended to make you feel better about your social standing rather than one aimed at make you feel better about your intellect.

MONEY health

Smoking Can Cost You $1 Million to $2 Million in a Lifetime

smoking cigarette wrapped in money on ashtray
John Knil—Getty Images

Your pack-a-day habit isn't just destroying your lungs, but your bank account as well—more than you ever imagined.

According to the American Lung Association, tobacco kills nearly half a million Americans annually and costs the nation $333 billion per year in health-care expenses and lost productivity to boot. But it’s hard for the average person—specifically, the average smoker—to wrap one’s brain around such an enormous figure.

Coming to the rescue, timed to coincide with the CDC’s Tobacco Awareness Week, is a new state-by-state analysis from WalletHub detailing the lifelong financial costs of smoking for an individual. Because the average price of a pack of cigarettes varies widely around the country—$5.25 in Virginia, $8 in Michigan, $12.85 in New York—the lifetime outlay varies greatly from state to state as well. In all cases, though, the data gathered by WalletHub show that smoking is incredibly costly in addition to being potentially deadly.

The total cost per smoker is estimated at $1,097,690 in South Carolina—and it’s the least expensive state in the nation. A Kansas City Star headline noted that the “cost of smoking is cheap in Missouri … relatively,” as the state ranks as the eighth least expensive on WalletHub’s list, with the total cost for a lifetime of smoking running “only” $1,177,230. At the high end of the spectrum, there’s Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut, where the habit costs more than $1.9 million per person in a lifetime. Priciest of all is Alaska, which crosses the $2 million mark.

For a little perspective, federal data estimates that the cost of raising a child to age 18 is about $250,000—a big chunk of change, but only a small fraction of expenses reportedly incurred by smokers.

Right about now, the average smoker (or just the average reader with a healthy degree of skepticism) is probably thinking: hogwash. The process of coming up with such wild figures must involve a fair amount of smoke and mirrors, so to speak, right?

Let’s have a look at what WalletHub did, exactly. By far, the largest expense incorporated into the per-person total is the “tobacco cost per smoker,” measured at $786,346 in South Carolina, up to roughly $1.5 million in Alaska. WalletHub came up with that figure by multiplying the average price of a pack of cigarettes in each state by the number of days in 51 years. Fair enough. There are cheaper ways to go about buying cigarettes, like buying smokes by the case, but many people purchase by the pack.

What’s trickier is the way that WalletHub pumped up its tobacco cost estimates by calculating “the amount of return a person would have earned by instead investing that money in the stock market over the same period. We used the historical average market return rate for the S&P 500 minus the inflation rate during the same time period to reflect the return in present-value terms.” In other words, the assumption is that money not spent on cigarettes would have been dutifully and wisely invested over those same 51 years.

Similar assumptions have also been used in the now (mostly) discredited “latte factor,” which is the theory that holds that people can wind up with millions in the bank by cutting back on everyday expenses like a daily latte. Among other reasons, this line of thinking is questionable because people don’t necessarily invest money that they don’t spend on some product or service—they’re more likely to simply spend that money on something else.

WalletHub also includes other costs that many smokers never think about, factoring in added health care expenses (with state-by-state data from the CDC) and an 8% hit on income due to smoking, as determined in a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Add up all of these and a few other estimated expenses, and over the course of a half-century, the cost to the pack-a-day smoker runs $1 million to $2 million, according to WalletHub. Are the figures overblown? Well, perhaps a bit. There’s a good argument to be made that the data were construed to come up with totals that are as big and headline-worthy as possible. (After all, they got our attention.)

Nonetheless, even if the figures are on the inflated side, it’s an undeniable reality that the smoking habit costs big bucks over a lifetime. And oh yeah, it can make your lifetime a lot shorter. Let’s not forget that.

MONEY consumer psychology

7 Ways to Trick Yourself into Saving More Money in 2015

piggy bank in various clamps and a vice
Steve Greer—Getty Images

These simple strategies can help you squeeze more out of your budget—and end the year with a lot more cash socked away than you started with.

If your New Year’s resolutions included growing—or starting—your savings, you’re already ahead of the pack.

Only about a third of Americans recently surveyed by Fidelity made any kind of financial resolution this year; and of those who did, just over half were aiming to stash more cash.

Kudos to you for taking this important step toward financial security.

Want to make sure your good intentions aren’t derailed before the month is out? The key is taking initial actions that will make repeating good habits easier, says University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler.

“We tend to revert to our long-run tendencies,” says Thaler. “To effect real changes, you have to make some structural change in the environment.”

With that wisdom in mind, the seven life changes that follow will help you save more money this year.

1. Use Inertia to Your Advantage

Research by Thaler and others has shown that people are victims of inertia: If you aren’t used to saving money with regularity, it’s likely going to feel like such a chore to start that you’ll never bother—or, you’ll quit after one account transfer.

But when your money is already being saved automatically, inertia works in your favor, since it’ll take more effort to stop saving than to do nothing. That is why a growing number of 401(k) plans offer automatic enrollment with a default monthly contribution rate.

Still, you may need to stick a hand in the machine if you want to have financial freedom in retirement, since the default rate (often around 3% of salary) won’t get you far in your golden years. Most planners recommend saving at least 10% of income.

Even if you set up your own plan, you probably haven’t touched your contribution rate since; more than a third of participants haven’t, according to a TIAA-CREF survey.

You can benefit from another relatively new feature called “auto-escalation.” Offered by nearly half of companies, auto-escalation lets you set your savings rate to bump up annually at a date of your choosing and to an amount of your choosing.

For other savings accounts, harness your own “good” inertia by setting up automatic transfers on payday from checking to savings (if you don’t see the money, you won’t get attached to it). Better yet, ask your HR department if you can split your direct deposit to multiple accounts.

2. Keep Your Eye on One Prize

Setting up automatic savings works well if your income and expenses are predictable; but what if either or both aren’t set in stone? You can save money as you go, but you’ll be more successful if you narrow your objectives.

Research from the University of Toronto found that savers often feel overwhelmed by the number of goals they need to put away money for—a stress that can lead to failure. Thinking about multiple objectives forces people to consider tradeoffs, leaving them waffling over choices instead of taking action.

One solution? Prioritize your goals, then knock out one at a time. If you know you need to contribute $5,000 to your retirement funds this year, focus on completing that first. Once it’s done, move on to saving for that dream home.

Another strategy is to think about your goals as interconnected; participants in the Toronto study were also able to overcome their uncertainty about saving when they integrated their objectives into an umbrella goal. So, for example, if you are saving for both a car and a vacation, consider setting up a “road trip” fund.

3. Focus on the Future

A part of what keeps people from saving is that we don’t connect our future aspirations with our present selves, research shows.

One way to get around that is by running some numbers on your retirement using a calculator like T. Rowe Price’s. When participants in a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research were sent exact figures showing how retirement savings contributions translated into income in retirement, they increased their annual contributions by more than $1,000 on average.

Another easy trick? Download an app like AgingBooth, which will show you how you’ll look as a geezer. One study showed that interacting with a virtual reality image of yourself in old age can make you better at saving.

This trick can work for more than just retirement. Another study found that when savers were sent visual reminders of their savings goals, they ended up with more cash stored up. Consider leaving photos of your goal (e.g., images of your children or dream home) next to the computer where you do your online banking to cue you to put more away.

4. Ignore Raises and Bonuses

As Harvard professor Sendhil Mullainathan has said, the biggest problem with getting a bonus is it’ll likely make you want to celebrate and spend it all—plus some.

The windfall creates an “abundance shock,” which gives you a misleading sense of freedom.

The simplest solution to this problem is to pretend you never got the raise or bonus in the first place, and to instead direct that new money into savings right away. (Remember the 401(k) auto-escalation tip? Set your contribution to bump up the week you get your raise.)

The same goes for when you return an item to a store for a refund or get a transportation reimbursement check in the mail. The faster you put extra cash into savings, the faster you’ll forget about spending it.

5. Make it Contractual

Carrots and sticks work.

One study asked smokers who were trying to quit to save money in an account for six months; at the end of the period, if a urine test showed them free of nicotine, the money was theirs. If not, the cash was donated to charity.

Surprise, surprise: People who participated in the savings account were more likely to have been cigarette-free at the six-month mark than a control group.

If you’re the type who responds to disincentives, enlist a buddy who can help you enforce upon yourself some kind of punishment if you don’t live up to your savings goal (e.g., you might promise a roommate that you’ll clean the bathroom for six weeks).

Maybe you respond better to positive feedback? Simply having a supportive friend or relative to report to on a set schedule may help you achieve results, as many of those who have participated in a group weight loss program like Weight Watchers can attest. Or you might look for some (non-monetary) way to reward yourself if successful.

You can use the website Stickk.com—inspired by the aforementioned study on smokers—to set up a commitment contract that involves incentives or disincentives.

6. Keep Impulses from Undoing Your Budget

Setting aside cash is only half of the equation when it comes to saving more: It’s just as important to keep spending under control.

Most people know to shop carefully—and early—for big-ticket items like cars or airline tickets (which are cheapest 49 days before you’re due to fly). But the premium for procrastinating on smaller items can also add up: Studies show that people spend more on last-minute purchases partly because shopping becomes a defensive act, focused on avoiding disappointment vs. getting the best value.

So give yourself plenty of time to research any item you’re planning to buy. And always go shopping with a list.

When you see an item that tempts you to diverge from your list, give yourself a 24-hour cooling-off period. Ask a sales clerk to keep the item on hold. Or, put it in your online shopping cart, until the same time tomorrow (chances are, that e-tailer will send you a coupon).

Or you could try this trick that MONEY writer Brad Tuttle uses to determine whether an item is worthy of his dough: Pick a type of purchase you love—in his case, burritos—and use that as a unit of measurement. For example, if you see a $120 shirt you like, you can ask yourself, “Is this really worth 10 burritos?” Likewise, you could measure the cost of an item in terms of how many hours of work you had to put in to earn the money to pay for it.

Also, since gift-shopping procrastination undoes a lot of people’s budgets, you might think about starting a spreadsheet where you can jot down ideas for presents year-round. That way, someone’s birthday rolls around, you can shop for a specific item on price rather than spending out of desperation.

Finally, remember that “anchor” prices can bias us to be thrifty or extravagant. So when you are shopping for products that range widely in price (like clothes or cars), start by inspecting cheaper items before viewing pricier ones. That way your brain will stay “anchored” to lower prices, and view the costlier options with more scrutiny.

7. Force Yourself to Feel Guilty

Surveys show that about a third of people don’t check their credit card statements every month.

That’s a problem, and not only because vigilance is your best defense against extraneous charges or credit card fraud. Seeing your purchases enumerated can also help reign in spending by making you feel guilty—one of many reasons people avoid looking.

Another perk of staying up-to-date with your bills: It makes you more aware of paying for redundant services, like Geico and AAA car insurance or Netflix and Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus.

Keep in mind that shaving off a recurring monthly payment gives you 12x the bump in savings. So a few of these expenses could boost your annual savings by a few hundred bucks. That’s a lot of burritos.

More on resolutions:

Read next: These Types of People End Up More Successful and Make More Money

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

MONEY Food & Drink

How Coke Convinced Us to Pay More … for Less Soda

A 7.5-ounce can of Coca-cola, right, is posed next to a 12-ounce can for comparison.
A 7.5-ounce can of Coca-Cola, right, is posed next to its big brother, the traditional 12-ouncer. Matt Rourke—AP

Talk about a brilliant sales concept!

Soda sales may be in a slump, but one sliver of the soft drink market—the segment that comes in smaller than usual sizes, including those adorably tiny 7.5-ounce cans—is booming. What’s especially curious about the trend is that sales have been taking off even though the smaller packages offer far worse value to consumers.

This week, the Associated Press explored this odd scenario, in which consumers are clamoring to buy Coke, Pepsi, and other sodas in unconventionally smaller sized packaging, notably the 7.5-ounce mini can that’s generally sold in eight-packs in stores.

Previously, the Wall Street Journal reported that sales of smaller Coca-Cola packages—including the mini cans, as well as 8-ounce glass bottles and 1.25-liter plastic bottles—were up 9% through the first 10 months of 2014. During the same time period, sales of regular old 12-ounce cans and 2-liter bottles were as flat as a bottle of week-old Coke.

Beyond their nontraditional size, what all of the smaller soda items have in common is that they’re “premium-priced packages.” Yes, the value proposition in the trendy category is that you not only get less product, but you get to pay more for the privilege. Coca-Cola estimates that consumers typically pay 31¢ for each traditional 12-ounce Coke purchased in a 12- or 24-pack at the supermarket. By contrast, the average price per 7.5-ounce mini can breaks down to 40¢ a pop.

And remember, you’re getting a lot less soda in the smaller cans. Tally up all of the soda in one of these eight-packs and it comes to 60 ounces, which is slightly less than the contents of one Double Gulp before 7-Eleven downsized it from 64 ounces to a mere 50. On a per-ounce basis, consumers are effectively paying double for the smaller packages: 5.3¢ per ounce for Coke in mini cans, versus 2.6¢ per ounce for the same beverage in 12-ounce cans.

What explains consumers’ willingness to pay more for less soda? One explanation is that the mini cans are simply “freaking adorable,” as one source put it when speaking to the AP. She’s not the only one to think so. Last year, a marketing campaign deposited adorable mini kiosks—complete with adorable waist-high Coke vending machines selling adorable mini Cokes—in five German cities. Here’s a look:

The result of this experiment, in addition to enough adorableness to make your head explode, was sales that were anything but small. Ogilvy & Mather Berlin, the firm behind the campaign, said that the kiosks averaged 380 cans sold daily, 278% higher than your typical Coke machine.

Mini sodas aren’t selling like crazy just because they’re cute, however. As we’ve pointed out before, consumers are attracted to small sodas—and beer—because they come with fewer calories than the regular sizes. The great (or sad) irony is that research shows that consumers tend to buy (and drink) far more sugary drinks when they’re purchased in smaller packages. Therefore, whatever health benefits may have been gained via the small size is likely outweighed by the fact that you’re consuming as many or more ounces of soda overall.

In other words, as nonsensical as it seems, it may be healthier for you to buy soda in larger sizes. It’s certainly better for your wallet.

Read next: The Soda Industry’s Promises Mean Nothing

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

MONEY consumer psychology

7 Reasons to Pretend You Make Less Money

Trick your brain and your wallet will follow.

We all know you can get in financial trouble by pretending to have more money than you actually do — and most of us know that you can’t make an educated guess at someone’s salary by checking out the car they drive. So you can appear to be wealthy even if you’re not. But can you get ahead by telling yourself (and intimating to others) that your paycheck is smaller than it actually is? There are some pretty compelling reasons to do it, and you could find yourself in a far better position than if your paycheck just barely covers expenses.

Here are some reasons to consider pretending your paycheck is just a bit smaller than it really is.

1. Sock Away Money in an Emergency Fund

If you don’t have an emergency fund (or even if you do), you can pretty much count on having an emergency. Car transmissions break, you need to travel unexpectedly or someone in your family ends up needing help. Experts recommend six to 12 months’ worth of expenses in your emergency fund. If you don’t yet have that, you may want to make sure you have access to credit. (You can check your free credit report summary on Credit.com to get an idea of how you would be judged by potential lenders.) But having the money saved is a better alternative.

2. Pay Down Debt Faster

If you pretend you make, say, 10% less than you actually do, you can probably cut expenses to accommodate the reduced pay. But the money you will save isn’t pretend — and you can send it to your creditors, reducing or eliminating debt much more quickly. This little fib helps keep your spending in check, which will free you to direct the money someplace else, making some other dream a reality more quickly. You can even figure out a timeline for getting out of credit card debt with this nifty calculator.

3. Save for a Down Payment or Your Kid’s College

Whether you’re looking to buy a house, educate a child or take a trip around the world, your dream is likely to require a significant chunk of change. And one way to get that is to pretend that earmarked money does not even exist. You can have it transferred into a designated account the same day you get paid so that you are not tempted to use it for the heavily discounted camping equipment that you know about because the advertisement for it popped up in your inbox. (Another money-saving hint: Most of us will spend less if we unsubscribe.)

4. Put More Money in Retirement Savings

Retirement seems a long way off when you are in your 20s, and it is. But most people’s expenses grow with time (particularly if you choose to raise children). It is not going to suddenly become easier to save more, at least not until you have far less time to do it, and the money has less time to grow. How many people have you heard complaining that they wished they hadn’t saved so much for retirement?

5. Friends Won’t Pressure You to Splurge

We’re not suggesting you do away with little luxuries altogether. You and a friend want to go get manicures? Go for it (sometimes). But think about whether all of your get-togethers need to involve a meal out, shopping or manicures. Maybe they made a resolution to move more. Walks can do double duty to help get your body and finances in better shape. And if your friends know you are on a beer budget, chances are they won’t assume you have a champagne salary.

6. Friends & Family Won’t Consider You a Human ATM

Do you often or always pick up the tab for groups because you can afford it? If you say, “my treat” too often, it’s possible you’re sending a signal that because you have more, you have an obligation to share it with your friends and family. You may feel that way as well, and if you do, you would be especially wise to pretend you have a little less money than you actually do. If you do choose to give or lend money to friends and relatives, make sure everyone is clear on what is a gift and what is a loan. Money misunderstandings have the potential to damage relationships.

7. Your Income Could Drop

It’s easy — and tempting — to think your salary will be on an upward trajectory from your first day of work until your last. (Don’t the retirement calculators assume that?) And who plans for a furlough or the loss of a big client? During hard times, it’s not unheard-of for companies to levy across-the-board salary cuts. And if you’re acting as if you make every dime that you actually do, it will be harder to adjust than if you’ve been acting as if you made less.

More from Credit.com

This article originally appeared on Credit.com.

MONEY Saving

How the Great Unbundling of Pay TV Could Backfire on Consumers

Cable remote
Brad Wilson—Getty Images

Cable TV customers love the idea of paying just for the services they want—and skipping those they couldn't care less about. To see how such an a la carte model could turn to misery, however, look no further than the airline business.

For years, couch potatoes have dreamed of an a la carte pay TV model. Instead of the standard package—a bloated bundle with hundreds of channels that you’re paying for whether you ever tune in or not—the a la carte option would allow customers to pick and choose and pay for only those deemed worthy. Every household is different, but the average pay TV customer watches only 17 channels, a small fraction of the 189 channels that are factored into the average package’s monthly bill.

To which the natural reaction of many customers tired of constantly rising cable bills is: Wouldn’t it be a cinch to save a bundle simply by eliminating the bundle?

In fact, while the oversized bundle remains the standard, the door to unraveling the cable package has been opened, thanks to the arrival of a broad variety of viewing options—notably including standalone streaming options that require no cable package from HBO, the Dish Network, and of course Netflix. Admittedly, Dish’s just-introduced Sling TV streaming service is also a bundle, but it comes with only 11 popular, very watchable channels (including all-important ESPN), and at just $20 a month, it’s a potentially big money saver.

To many, it’s a just and foregone conclusion that the big cable bundle will continue to lose its dominance in the marketplace, and that cord cutters and upstart competitors will push us all toward an increasingly a la carte system. There are likely to be more small and affordable packages along the lines of Sling TV, and we’ll probably see more options to pay to stream content from favorite individual channels, which HBO and CBS have already made possible.

And yet, as much as consumers loathe the big pay TV providers, analysts have long warned that we should be careful what we wish for in terms of an a la carte viewing future that doesn’t necessarily involve Cablevision, Comcast, Verizon, or Time Warner Cable.

Back in 2010, New Yorker business columnist James Surowiecki wrote that if the bundle disappeared, the cost per customer for each channel would soar, “perhaps on a customer-by-customer basis.” The likely result would be that loads of channels would go out of business, and that the average customer would pay roughly the same amount monthly he was paying for the big bundle, only with far fewer channels.

The landscape has changed since then, what with the consensus assumption that TV in the future will be delivered via the Internet rather than cable. Yet the argument that unbundled TV will not necessarily yield cheaper prices remains. Among cable defenders, this acclaimed manifesto from 2013 summed up the big upside to the bundle, including more content and cheaper prices when they’re broken down on a per-person, per-channel basis:

Cable TV is socialism that works; subscribers pay equally for everything, and watch only what they want, to the benefit of everyone.

More recently, Wired offered some deep-held concerns for consumers regarding a future dominated by Internet TV options:

It will be deeply fragmented. That could threaten the very companies that pioneered this space to begin with—and make it more difficult and more expensive to get everything you want to watch.

In light of Dish’s rollout of Sling TV this week, Neil Irwin of the New York Times summed up previous research on the topic of how an a la carte TV scene would play out, writing, “contrary to many peoples’ intuition, the unbundling of cable service could actually lead to slightly higher prices for fewer channels.”

Irwin pushes the issue further, diving into the idea that not only could unbundling provide worse value, but there’s a good chance it’d make the average customer even more miserable regarding pay TV than he is right now. And the cautionary tale he cites as an example of how this could come about is the one that travelers have been living through for the past two decades or so. After all, the airline industry has steadily unbundled the flight product, which was once a package including food, checked bags, and the privilege of actually sitting on the plane next to your travel companion. With today’s more a la carte model, the price of airfare may include nothing more than bare-bones transportation.

What’s more, the airlines that have embraced the a la carte, fee-laden way of doing business most just so happen to be the most hated carriers of all. And across the board in the industry, flight prices have gone up, not down, while the unbundling has been underway.

Is pay TV heading in this same direction? Irwin acknowledges that unbundling undeniably benefits certain kinds of consumers—travelers who don’t fly with bags or care about legroom, and TV viewers who watch only a few channels and no sports. Yet he writes that the effects of unbundling on the average TV customer will be similar to what we’ve seen with the airlines:

For many more people, the result will probably be little or no reduction in total fees, combined with the hassle of making constant decisions about what channels you really want and which you don’t.

The airlines have been working hard over the years to perfect systems for extracting maximum revenues out of passengers. A recent New Yorker story described the broad airline strategy of inflicting “calculated misery” on customers and all but force them to pay fees to avoid the pain: “Basic service, without fees, must be sufficiently degraded in order to make people want to pay to escape it.”

Bloomberg View columnist Megan McArdle responded to the idea of “calculated misery” with a slightly different take on the matter. “The problem isn’t greedy airlines” trying to milk customers by making them miserable, she writes. “It’s us.”

When travelers use search engines to find and book the cheapest tickets possible, McArdle explained, we’re sending a message to airlines that low flight prices are the most important and perhaps only criterion in our purchasing decisions. “To win business, airlines have to deliver the absolute lowest fare,” McArdle writes. “And the way to do that is … to cram us into tiny seats and upcharge for everything.”

It’s understandable that people want cheap airfares, just like we want cheap pay TV bills. It’s just that the way providers get to these end points may ultimately make us less—not more—happy. In the end, the standard could become an assortment of confusing fees and bills that, when tallied up, isn’t cheap at all.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser