beyond the hedonic treadmill

5/27/2018 Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill

1/15

Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill

Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being

Diener, E., Lucas, R.E., & Scollon


2/15

Abstract.

Recent evidence suggests that 5 important

revisions are needed in the hedonic

treadmill theory of subjective well-being.

The article aims is to put forward these

important revisions and the evidence for

them.


3/15

Introduction.

Brickman and Campbells (1971) hedonic

treadmill theory.

Widely accepted model of subjective well-

being.

..No matter how much effort and care

someone puts into being happy, the long

term effects are no different than if she or

he lived a profligate and dissolute life..


4/15

In 1978 Brickman, Coates and Janoff-

Bulman offered empirical support for the

treadmill model.

1)Found lottery winners were no happier

than nonwinners

2)Found people with paraplegia were not

substantially less happy than those who

could walk.


5/15

The authors themselves also readily accepted the theory,and some of Dieners own work could be explained by it.

1)Diener et al. (1993) found income and happinesscorrelated only .13 in the US.

2)Diener et al. (1995) found objective physical attractivenesscorrelated at very low levels with well-being.

3)Okun and George (1984) found that objective health onaverage only correlated .08 with happiness.

4)Suh et all (1996)-bad life events affected happiness only if

occurred in past 2 months.

So parts of model have received robust empirical support.


6/15

Revision 1: Nonneutral Set Points

The original model suggests that followingmajor life events people soon return to aneutralset point. But

1)A review by Diener and Diener (1996)found three quarters of the samplereported affect balance scores aboveneutral.

2)World Values Survey-80% very or quitehappy.


7/15

Revision 2:Individual Set Points

They vary.

Due to inborn personality-based influences

1)Level of well-being reasonably stable.

2)Well-being moderately heritable.

3)Personality factors strong correlates ofwell-being variable. Eg any single

demographic factor typically correlatesless than 0.2 with well-being.personalitymuch more.


8/15

Revision 3: Multiple Set Points


9/15

To further test the separability 0f well beingcomponents Diener and colleagues looked

at stability of positive ad negative affectover time.

1)Various components exhibited differential

stability 2) Stability of positive affect declined withlonger time periods, whereas the stability ofnegative affect did not.

These findings suggest stable individualbaselines might be more characteristic ofpositive than negative affect.


10/15

Revision 4: Happiness can change


11/15

Further support well-being can

change. Longitudinal individual data.

Lucas et al (2003)

They found, in accordance with adaptation

theories, that Germans did not get lasting

boosts in happiness after marriage.

However Widows and Widowers, people

laid off from work, and individuals who

divorced all reported lasting changes in life

satisfaction.


12/15

Revision 5: Individual Differences

in Adaptation Evidence that size and direction of change in life

satisfaction differed considerably across individuals.

Two important research traditions which focus onwhen people do or do not adapt:

1)Utility of specific coping strategies eg.Reappraisal=more positive emotions, older

individuals=humour.

2)Personality characteristics influence coping eg.

Neuroticism=ineffective coping strategiesOptimism=active coping/ strategies that can change the

situation.


13/15

Implications.. Adaptation should not be refuted completely.

Instead the psychological processes which underlieadaptation must be reconsidered.

Interventions can be successful.

Eg. Sheldon and Lyubomirsky-random acts of kindness

Eg. Seligman et al (2005)-interventions via the internet Lasting changes among individuals-worth organisational

changes?

Diener and Seligman-system of national accounts of well-

being (2004) Evidence here suggests such a system to improve

happiness would not be doomed by the hedonic treadmill.


14/15

Future research

A number of issues remain unresolved

1)Why do adaptation affects appear to

vary across different events?

2) Can people slow adaptation to good

events and speed recovery from bad

events?

3)Do some components of well-being

adapt more readily than others?


15/15

Finally.

The authors conclude by stressing theimportance of large, representativesamples, and longitudinal methodologies.

Furthermore they point to the importanceof further research of factors suggestingadaptation is NOT inevitable, likeindividual differences, to find effectiveinterventions aimed at improvingsubjective well-being.

beyond the hedonic treadmill

Documents