Hedonic treadmill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The hedonic treadmill, also known as hedonic adaptation, is the supposed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or life changes.[1] According to this theory, as a person makes more money, expectations and desires rise in tandem, which results in no permanent gain in happiness. Brickman and Campbell coined the term in their essay "Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society" (1971).[2] During the late 1990s, the concept was modified by Michael Eysenck, a British psychologist, to become the current "hedonic treadmill theory" which compares the pursuit of happiness to a person on a treadmill, who has to keep working just to stay in the same place.

The Hedonic (or Happiness) Set Point has gained interest throughout the field of positive psychology where it has been developed and revised further.[3] Given that hedonic adaptation generally demonstrates that a person's long term happiness is not significantly affected by otherwise impactful events, positive psychology has concerned itself with the discovery of things that can lead to lasting changes in happiness levels.

Overview[edit]

Happiness seems to be more like a thermostat, since our temperaments tend to bring us back towards a certain happiness level (a tendency influenced by carefully chosen activities and habits).

Hedonic adaptation is a process or mechanism that reduces the affective impact of emotional events. Generally, hedonic adaptation involves a happiness “set point”, whereby humans generally maintain a constant level of happiness throughout their lives, despite events that occur in their environment.[4][5] The process of hedonic adaptation is often conceptualized as a treadmill, since one must continually work to maintain a certain level of happiness. Others conceptualize hedonic adaptation as functioning similarly to a thermostat (a negative feedback system) that works to maintain an individual’s happiness set point. One of the main concerns of positive psychology is determining how to maintain or raise one’s happiness set point, and further, what kind of practices lead to lasting happiness.

Hedonic adaptation can occur in a variety of ways. Generally, the process involves cognitive changes, such as shifting values, goals, attention and interpretation of a situation.[6] Further, neurochemical processes desensitize overstimulated hedonic pathways in the brain, which possibly prevents persistently high levels of intense positive or negative feelings.[7] The process of adaptation can also occur through the tendency of humans to construct elaborate rationales for considering themselves deprived through a process social theorist Gregg Easterbrook calls "abundance denial".[8][9]

Major theoretical approaches[edit]

Behavioral/psychological approach[edit]

The “Hedonic Treadmill” is a term coined by Brickman and Campbell in their article “Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society” (Brickman, 1971), describing the tendency of people to keep a fairly stable baseline level of happiness despite external events and fluctuations in demographic circumstances.[4] The idea of relative happiness had been around for decades when in 1978 Brickman and Campbell began to approach hedonic pleasure within the framework of Helson’s adaptation level theory, which holds that perception of stimulation is dependent upon comparison of former stimulations.[10] The hedonic treadmill functions similarly to most adaptations that serve to protect and enhance perception. In the case of hedonics, the sensitization or desensitization to circumstances or environment can redirect motivation. This reorientation functions to protect against complacency, but also to accept unchangeable circumstances, and redirect efforts towards more effective goals.[11] Frederick and Lowenstein classify three types of processes in hedonic adaptation: shifting adaptation levels, desensitization, and sensitization. Shifting adaptation levels occurs when a person experiences a shift in what is perceived as a “neutral” stimulus, but maintains sensitivity to stimulus differences. For example, if Sam gets a raise he will initially be happier, and then habituate to the larger salary and return to his happiness set point. But he will still be pleased when he gets a holiday bonus. Desensitization decreases sensitivity in general, which reduces sensitivity to change. Those who have lived in war zones for extended periods of time may become desensitized to the destruction that happens on a daily basis, and be less affected by the occurrence of serious injuries or losses that may once have been shocking and upsetting.[11] Sensitization is an increase of hedonic response from continuous exposure, such as the increased pleasure and selectivity of connoisseurs for wine, or food.[11]

Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman were among the first to investigate the hedonic treadmill in their 1978 study, “Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?”. Lottery winners and paraplegics were compared to a control group and as predicted, comparison (with past experiences and current communities) and habituation (to new circumstances) affected levels of happiness such that after the initial impact of the extremely positive or negative events, happiness levels typically went back to the average levels.[10] This interview-based study, while not longitudinal, was the beginning of a now large body of work exploring the relativity of happiness.

Brickman and Campbell originally implied that everyone returns to the same neutral set point after a significantly emotional life event.[4] In the literature review, “Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill, Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being” (2006), Diener, Lucas, and Scollon concluded that people are not hedonically neutral, and that individuals have different set points which are at least partially heritable.[12] They also concluded that individuals may have more than one happiness set point, such as a life satisfaction set point and a subjective well being set point, and that because of this, one's level of happiness is not just one given set point but can vary within a given range.[12] Diener and colleagues point to longitudinal and cross-sectional research to argue that happiness set point can change, and lastly that individuals vary in the rate and extent of adaptation they exhibit to change in circumstance.[12]

In a longitudinal study conducted by Mancini, Bonnano, and Clark, people showed individual differences in how they responded to significant life events, such as marriage, divorce and widowhood. They recognized that some individuals do experience substantial changes to their hedonic set point over time, though most others do not, and argue that happiness set point can be relatively stable throughout the course of an individual’s life, but the life satisfaction and subjective well being set points are more variable.[13] Similarly, the longitudinal study conducted by Fujita and Diener (2005) described the life satisfaction set point as a “soft baseline”. This means that for most people, this baseline is similar to their happiness baseline. Typically, life satisfaction will hover around a set point for the majority of their lives and not change dramatically. However, for about a quarter of the population this set point is not stable, and does indeed move in response to a major life event.[14] Other longitudinal data has shown that subjective well being set points do change over time, and that adaptation is not necessarily inevitable.[15] In his archival data analysis, Lucas found evidence that it is possible for someone’s subjective well-being set point to change drastically, such as in the case of individuals who acquire a severe, long term disability.[15] However, as Diener, Lucas, and Scollon point out, the amount of fluctuation a person experiences around their set point is largely dependent on the individual’s ability to adapt.[12]

After following over a thousand sets of twins for 10 years, Lykken and Tellegen (1996) concluded that almost 50% of our happiness levels are determined by genetics.[16] Headey and Wearing (1989) suggested that our position on the spectrum of the stable personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience) accounts for how we experience and perceive life events, and indirectly contributes to our happiness levels.[17] Research on happiness has spanned decades and crossed cultures in order to test the true limits of our hedonic set point.

Major empirical findings[edit]

In general there is conflicting evidence on the validity of the hedonic treadmill, if people always return to a baseline level of happiness or if some events have the ability to change this baseline for good. While some researchers believe life events change people’s baseline for good over the course of one’s life, others believe people will always return to their baseline.

In the aforementioned Brickman study (1978), researchers interviewed 22 lottery winners and 29 paraplegics (Paraplegia) in order to determine their change in happiness levels due to their given event (winning lottery or becoming paralyzed). The group of lottery winners reported years after winning the lottery, participants were no happier than before they won. These findings show that having a large monetary gain had no effect on their baseline level of happiness, for both present and future happiness. Similarly, they found that a few years after the accident, the paraplegics reported similar levels of happiness in life to before the accident (i.e. they were no less happy with their lives than they were before the accident). One must note that the paraplegics did have an initial decrease in life happiness, but the key to their findings is that they eventually returned to their baseline in time.[4]

Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener (2006) researched changes in baseline level of well-being due to marital status, birth of first child, and layoff. While they found that a negative life event can have a greater impact on a person’s psychological state and happiness set point than a positive event, they ultimately concluded that people completely adapt, return to their baseline level of well-being, after divorce, losing a spouse, birth of a child, and females losing their job. They did not find a return to baseline for marriage or for layoffs in men. This study also illustrated that the amount of adaptation that occurs is largely on an individual basis.[15]

Wildeman, Turney, Schnittker (2014) studied the effects of imprisonment on one’s baseline level of well-being. They researched how being in jail affects one’s level of happiness both short term (while in prison) and long term (after being released). They found that being in prison has negative effects on one’s baseline well-being; in other words one’s baseline of happiness is lower in prison than when not in prison. They found support for the hedonics treadmill in that once people were released from prison, they were able to bounce back to their previous level of happiness.[18]

Silver (1982) researched the effects of a traumatic accident on one’s baseline level of happiness. Silver found that that accident victims were able to return to a happiness set point after a period of time. For eight weeks, Silver followed accident victims who had sustained severe spinal cord injuries. About a week after their accident, Silver observed that the victims were experiencing much stronger negative emotions than positive ones. By the eighth and final week, the victims’ positive emotions outweighed their negative ones. The results of this study suggest that regardless of whether the life event is significantly negative or positive, people will almost always return to their happiness baseline.[19]

Diener & Fujita (2005) studied the stability of one's level of subjective well-being over time and found that for most people, there is a relatively small range in which their level of satisfaction varies. They asked a panel of 3,608 German residents to rate their current and overall satisfaction with life on a scale of 0-10, once a year for seventeen years. Only 25% of participants exhibited shifts in their level of life satisfaction over the course of the study, with just 9% of participants having experienced significant changes. They also found that those with a higher mean level of life satisfaction had more stable levels of life satisfaction compared to those with lower levels of satisfaction.[20]

Applications[edit]

The concept of the happiness set point can be applied in clinical psychology to help patients return to their hedonic set point when negative events happen. Determining when someone is mentally distant from their happiness set point and what events trigger those changes can be extremely helpful in treating conditions such as depression. When a change occurs, clinical psychologists work with patients to recover from the depressive spell and return to their hedonic set point more quickly. Because acts of kindness often promote long-term well-being, one treatment method is to provide patients with different altruistic activities that can help a person raise his or her hedonic set point.[21][22] Further, helping patients understand that long-term happiness is relatively stable throughout one’s life can help to ease anxiety surrounding impactful events.

Hedonic adaptation is also relevant to resilience research. Resilience is a “class of phenomena characterized by patterns of positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity or risk," meaning that resilience is largely the ability for one to remain at their hedonic setpoint while going through negative experiences.[23] Psychologists have identified various factors that contribute to a person being resilient, such as positive attachment relationships (see Attachment Theory), positive self-perceptions, self-regulatory skills (see Emotional self-regulation), ties to prosocial organizations (see Prosocial behavior), and a positive outlook on life.[23] These factors can contribute to maintaining a happiness set point even in the face of adversity or negative events.

Critical views[edit]

One critical point made regarding our individual set point is to understand it may simply be a genetic tendency and not a completely determined criterion for happiness, and it can still be influenced.[3] In a study on moderate to excessive drug intake on rats, Ahmed and Koob (1998), sought to demonstrate that the use of mind-altering drugs such as cocaine could change an individual's hedonic set point. Their findings suggest that drug usage and addiction lead to neurochemical adaptations whereby a person needs more of that substance to feel the same levels of pleasure. Thus, drug abuse can have lasting impacts on one’s hedonic set point, both in terms of overall happiness and with regard to pleasure felt from drug usage.[24]

Genetic roots of the hedonic set point are also disputed. Sosis (2013) has argued that the 'hedonic treadmill' interpretation of twin studies depends on dubious assumptions. Pairs of identical twins raised apart aren't necessarily raised in substantially different environments. The similarities between twins (such as intelligence or beauty) may invoke similar reactions from the environment. Thus, we might see a similarity in happiness levels even though genes aren't governing affect levels directly. Thus, subjects in these studies might display similar happiness levels even though genetics are not governing these levels directly.[25]

Further, hedonic adaptation may be a more common phenomenon when dealing with positive events as opposed to negative ones.Negativity bias, where people tend to focus more on negative emotions than positive emotions, can be an obstacle in raising one's happiness set point. Negative emotions often require more attention and are generally remembered better, overshadowing any positive experiences that may even outnumber negative experiences.[3][26] Given that negative events hold more psychological power than positive ones, it may be difficult to create lasting positive change.

Headey (2008) concluded that an internal locus of control and having "positive" personality traits (notably low neuroticism) are the two most significant factors affecting one's subjective well-being. Headey also found that adopting "non-zero sum" goals, those which enrich one's relationships with others and with society as a whole (i.e. family-oriented and altruistic goals), increase the level of subjective well-being. Conversely, attaching importance to zero-sum life goals (career success, wealth, and social status) will have a small but nevertheless statistically significant negative impact on people's overall subjective well-being (even though the size of a household's disposable income does have a small, positive impact on subjective well-being). Duration of one's education seems to have no direct bearing on life satisfaction. And, contradicting set point theory, Headey found no return to homeostasis after sustaining a disability or developing a chronic illness. These disabling events are permanent, and thus according to cognitive model of depression, may contribute to depressive thoughts and increase neuroticism (another factor found by Headey to diminish subjective well-being). Disability appears to be the single most important factor affecting human subjective well-being. The impact of disability on subjective well-being is almost twice as large as that of the second strongest factor affecting life satisfaction—the personality trait of neuroticism.[27]

Oswald and Powdthavee (2008) looked at the capability of someone, after an onset of a disability, to return to their original happiness set point (i.e. before the accident). They studied the economic literature in attempts to disprove the idea that people have close to 100% hedonic adaptation after an injury (previously reported by Brickman et al). They concluded that the degree of adaptation is actually around 30-50%, quite different from 100%.[28] These results suggest that the hedonic treadmill may not actual be a real concept and that we are not always able to return to our happiness set point.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Rosenbloom, Stephanie (August 7, 2010). "But Will It Make You Happy?". New York Times. Retrieved August 16, 2010. 
  2. ^ in M. H. Apley, ed., Adaptation Level Theory: A Symposium, New York: Academic Press, 1971, pp 287–302
  3. ^ a b c Lykken, David, and Auke Tellegen. "Happiness Is A Stochastic Phenomenon." Psychological Science 7.3 (1996): 186-189. Print.
  4. ^ a b c d Brickman & Campbell (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. New York: Academic Press. pp. 287–302. 
  5. ^ Kuhn, Peter J; Kooreman, Peter; Soetevent, Adriaan; & Kapteyn, Arie. (2008). The Own and Social Effects of an Unexpected Income Shock: Evidence from the Dutch Postcode Lottery. Department of Economics, UCSB. UC Santa Barbara: Department of Economics, UCSB. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/07k895v4
  6. ^ Frederick, Shane; Loewenstein, George Kahneman, Daniel (Ed); Diener, Ed (Ed); Schwarz, Norbert (Ed), (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. , (pp. 302-329). New York, NY, US: Russell Sage Foundation, xii, 593 pp.
  7. ^ Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychological Review, 81, 119-145
  8. ^ Ortberg, John. When the Game Is Over, It All Goes Back in the Box, p. 173 (Zondervan, 2008).
  9. ^ Easterbrook, Gregg. The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse (Random House, 2003). ISBN 0812973038
  10. ^ a b Brickman, Philip; Coates, Dan; Janof-BUlman, Ronnie, Aug, 1978, Journal of Personality and Social psychology 36.8, 917-927
  11. ^ a b c Frederick, Lowenstein, Hedonic Adaptation, 1999, Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology, 302-329
  12. ^ a b c d Diener, E ; Lucas, RE ; Scollon, CN, Beyond the hedonic treadmill - Revising the adaptation theory of well-being, American Psychologist, 2006, Vol.61(4), pp.305-314
  13. ^ Anthony D. Mancini1, George A. Bonanno2, and Andrew E. Clark3, Stepping Off the Hedonic Treadmill Individual Differences in Response to Major Life Events, Journal of Individual Differences 2011; Vol. 32(3):144–152
  14. ^ Fujita, F. and Diener (2005). Life satisfaction set-point: Stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 158-64
  15. ^ a b c Lucas; Clark, Georgellis, Diener (2003). "Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (3): 527–539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.527. 
  16. ^ Lykken, D. and Tellegen, A. (1996) Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7, 186-89
  17. ^ Headey, B.W. and Wearing, A.J. (1992) Understanding Happiness: A Theory of Subjective Well-Being. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire
  18. ^ Christopher Wildeman, Kristin Turney, and Jason Schnittker, The Hedonic Consequences of Punishment Revisited, 103 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 113 (). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol104/iss1/4
  19. ^ Silver (1982). Coping with an undesirable life event: A study of early reactions to physical disability. Northwestern University.
  20. ^ Fujita; Diener (2005). "Life satisfaction set point: stability and change". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (1): 158.
  21. ^ "Psychologists now know what makes people happy" Marilyn Elias. New York Times. December 10, 2009.
  22. ^ Sheldon, K. M.; Lyubomirsky, Sonja (2006). "Achieving Sustainable Gains in Happiness: Change Your Actions Not Your Circumstances". Journal of Happiness Studies 7: 55–86. 
  23. ^ a b Masten, A. S., Cutuli, J. J., Herbers, J. E., & Reed, M.-G. J. (2009). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, 2nd ed. (pp. 117 - 131). New York: Oxford University Press.
  24. ^ Ahmed, S. H."Transition from moderate to excessive drug intake: change in hedonic set point." Science, Oct 9, 1998, Vol.282 (5387), p. 298
  25. ^ Sosis (2013), Hedonic Possibilities and Heritability statistics, Philosophical Psychology, forthcoming, 2013. [1]
  26. ^ Baumeister, Roy F., Ellen Bratslavsky, Catrin Finkenauer, and Kathleen D. Vohs. "Bad Is Stronger Than Good.." Review of General Psychology 5.4 (2001): 323-370. Print.
  27. ^ Headey, B. (2008). "Life Goals Matter to Happiness: A Revision of Set-Point Theory". Social Indicators Research. Vol. 86. No. 2, pp. 213
  28. ^ Oswald, Andrew J., and Nattavudh Powdthavee. "Does happiness adapt? A longitudinal study of disability with implications for economists and judges."Journal of Public Economics 92.5-6 (2008): 1061-1077. Print.

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Stambor_.282007.29" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Further reading[edit]

  • The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don't Need by Juliet B. Schor