Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being

1
Beyond the Hedonic TreadmillRevising the
Adaptation Theory of Well-Being

• Diener, E., Lucas, R.E., Scollon

2
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
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

• 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

• 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 happiness
  correlated only .13 in the US.
• 2)Diener et al. (1995) found objective physical
  attractiveness correlated at very low levels with
  well-being.
• 3)Okun and George (1984) found that objective
  health on average 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
Revision 1 Nonneutral Set Points

• The original model suggests that following major
  life events people soon return to a neutral set
  point. But
• 1)A review by Diener and Diener (1996) found
  three quarters of the sample reported affect
  balance scores above neutral.
• 2)World Values Survey-80 very or quite happy.

7
Revision 2Individual 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 of
  well-being variable. Eg any single demographic
  factor typically correlates less than 0.2 with
  well-being.personality much more.

8
Revision 3 Multiple Set Points
9

• To further test the separability 0f well being
  components Diener and colleagues looked at
  stability of positive ad negative affect over
  time.
• 1)Various components exhibited differential
  stability
• 2) Stability of positive affect declined with
  longer time periods, whereas the stability of
  negative affect did not.
• These findings suggest stable individual
  baselines might be more characteristic of
  positive than negative affect.

10
Revision 4 Happiness can change
11
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
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 on
  when people do or do not adapt
• 1)Utility of specific coping strategies eg.
• Reappraisalmore positive emotions, older
  individualshumour.
• 2)Personality characteristics influence coping
  eg.
• Neuroticismineffective coping strategies
• Optimismactive coping/ strategies that can
  change the situation.

13
Implications..

• Adaptation should not be refuted completely.
• Instead the psychological processes which
  underlie adaptation 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
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
Finally.

• The authors conclude by stressing the importance
  of large, representative samples, and
  longitudinal methodologies.
• Furthermore they point to the importance of
  further research of factors suggesting adaptation
  is NOT inevitable, like individual differences,
  to find effective interventions aimed at
  improving subjective well-being.