Two purchases that reliably lift happiness—the second one surprised me

If you’ve ever stared at your bank statement and wondered, “Okay, but which purchases actually make me feel better?”, you’re not alone.

A fresh wave of science reporting has put two answers back at the top of the list—and one of them still catches people off guard.

Over the past two decades, researchers led by psychologist Elizabeth Dunn have mapped how spending choices nudge our wellbeing up or down.

A recent piece in The Times pulls together what her lab and collaborators have learned from field experiments and large-scale studies across countries: spending on other people and spending to buy back time tend to move the happiness needle more reliably than almost anything else.

Below, I’ll unpack what those findings mean in plain English, why they hold up in the data, and how they fit into the bigger picture of “happy money.”

What the newest reporting says

The Times story (published four days ago) synthesizes years of work from Dunn and colleagues—including a large-scale global experiment—to show that money boosts happiness most when it strengthens social ties or reduces time stress.

The article also revisits two familiar ideas with fresh evidence: experiences generally outshine material goods, and prepaying for those experiences can amplify enjoyment by lowering “payment pain” and stretching out anticipation.

It also touches on a less obvious tip: rationing favorite indulgences helps prevent your brain from adapting and taking them for granted.

Taken together, this is a shift from “What can I buy that will make me happy?” to “How can I spend to shape happier days?” The emphasis is less on things and more on contexts—moments with others and days with breathing room.

The first purchase: spending on others

Call it generosity, prosocial spending, or simply picking up the tab—directing money toward other people tends to yield a bigger emotional return than spending the same amount on ourselves.

This isn’t just a warm-and-fuzzy hypothesis; it’s a pattern that shows up across cultures and income levels when researchers run careful tests.

In fact, a program of studies and replications has examined when and why gifts, donations, or helping loved ones measurably lift mood and life satisfaction, often more reliably than self-focused purchases of similar size.

One reason: generosity makes our social world feel sturdier. When we treat a friend, support a cause, or quietly cover a family expense, we’re not buying a moment—we’re investing in connection, identity, and a story about who we are.

That social dividend persists long after the receipt is lost. The Times feature underscores this point, noting that even small sums—used generously—deliver outsized benefits.

Another reason: prosocial spending is surprisingly flexible. You can tailor it to your values (animal rescue? local food banks?), your relationships (a surprise coffee drop-off for a colleague), or your neighborhood (supporting a community fundraiser).

The mechanism—feeling socially effective—shows up whether the amount is $5 or $50. And when researchers have pitted “spend on yourself” versus “spend on someone else” in randomized assignments, the “others” group tends to report higher happiness after the purchase. 

The second purchase: buying back time

Here’s the one that still surprises people, including past-me: paying to save time—by outsourcing chores, smoothing commutes, or eliminating hassles—can produce a reliable bump in wellbeing.

In a landmark series of studies, participants who bought a time-saving service (think: hiring help for cleaning, meal prep, errands, or lawn care) reported greater happiness than those who spent the same amount on a material good.

The effect was strongest for people feeling time-stressed, which (if we’re honest) includes most of us.

Follow-up reports from academic centers echo the pattern: using money to buffer “time famine” protects life satisfaction, because it removes a chronic drain rather than adding another possession to manage. The practical implication is refreshingly concrete: if your Saturday disappears into chores that sap your energy, selectively buying back a few hours isn’t indulgent—it’s evidence-based self-care.

This is the part that used to make my inner spreadsheet squirm. I spent years optimizing every dollar and ignoring hours altogether. But the research case is nontrivial: when a field experiment asked working adults to spend money on a time-saving purchase versus a material item, the time-savers came out happier.

If the choice is between a new gadget and two freed-up hours you’ll spend with people you love, the data quietly nudge you toward time.

Why experiences still tend to win (and how to make them work harder)

The Times write-up also revisits a well-known finding: experiences generally produce more durable satisfaction than things.

They become part of our identity, give us stories to tell, and usually involve other people—three ingredients that immunize purchases against hedonic adaptation.

Prepaying for those experiences helps, too. When you separate the payment from the pleasure by days or weeks, you remove friction and add anticipation. That’s a double win for mood.

This isn’t anti-stuff rhetoric. It’s a reminder that the structure of enjoyment matters. Spending that nudges you into conversations, shared attention, or meaningful effort lasts longer than a brief unboxing high.

You can even layer the two core purchases inside experiences: plan a prepaid outing that includes treating a friend (prosocial) and uses a service to remove a headache (time-saving). That combination lines up neatly with what the research predicts.

Guardrails: evidence, not ideology

A fair question is whether these effects hold up outside labs and clever one-off experiments.

The short answer: yes, with nuance.

Reviews of the literature point to robust effects for both prosocial spending and buying time, while also flagging moderators (it helps to choose recipients you care about and time-savers you’ll actually use).

Some replications have pushed for larger samples and preregistration—which is exactly what you want in a maturing field. The direction of the findings remains consistent: money aimed at other people and money aimed at giving yourself time generally beats money aimed at more stuff.

It also matters that the newest reporting ties these ideas to a larger, global evidence base rather than a single charismatic study. That breadth is part of why the conclusions feel newsworthy now: they’ve crossed from “interesting” to “actionable.”

Practical ways to act on this (without overspending)

I’m careful not to turn science findings into shopping lists. That said, here’s how the research translates into everyday choices:

• Start small with generosity. The size of the gift is less important than the fit with your values and relationships. A thoughtfully deployed $10 can outperform a forgettable $100 when it strengthens a bond or eases someone’s day.

• Buy time where the friction is worst. If laundry eats your Sunday or meals are the nightly stressor, test a targeted service—not a subscription you’ll resent. The question isn’t “Can I afford to outsource my life?” It’s “Which 90 minutes this week would change my mood the most if I got them back?”

• Prepay and plan for experiences. Booking ahead extends the pleasure arc (anticipation → experience → memory) and decouples payment from the moment you’re trying to savor. 

• Limit, don’t hoard, indulgences. Rationing favorites keeps your brain from adapting them into background noise. The aim isn’t austerity—it’s freshness.

The bottom line

If your goal is to lift happiness reliably, today’s best-supported bet is to spend on others and spend to buy back time.

Those two choices appear to pay the highest “joy dividend” per dollar because they build connection and reduce time stress—two levers with outsized influence on daily wellbeing.

To the extent that we can control it, how we spend shapes how we feel. And among the options on the table, generosity and time-turning keep proving their worth.