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), which appeared in M.H. Apley, ed., Adaptation Level Theory: A Symposium, New York: Academic Press, 1971, pp 287–302. During the late '90s, the concept was modified by Michael Eysenck, a British psychology researcher, 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 general idea of the "Hedonic (or Happiness) Set Point" has gained interest throughout the field of positive psychology where it has needed some revision.[2] The theory has consequences for understanding happiness as both an individual and a societal goal.
Contents |
The hedonic (or happiness) set point is a recently developed theory that requires further research. So far it illuminates an important facet of happiness and its homeostatic nature due to temperament. Less like a treadmill (which always tends towards one direction) and more like a thermostat (a negative feedback system), humans generally maintain a constant level of happiness throughout their lives - despite events that occur in their environment. The constancy is not nearly perfect, however; research tends to support a three-factor model, where our level of happiness is 50% determined by genetics, 10% determined by outside circumstances, and 40% determined by intentional activities.[3] That last factor, of intentional activities, is the focus of positive psychology, especially because not all activities are equally effective at helping one to reach the higher end of their happiness range.
Psychologists have concluded that there seems to be a set hedonic level of happiness. While outside experiences may nudge our overall happiness upward or downward, we usually inexorably return to the same state. One major component in the behavioral and psychological approaches to hedonic set point is a concept referred to as the Hedonic Treadmill Model. This model is designed around psychologists' conjecture that good and bad events may alter our level of subjective happiness temporarily, but in the long run we adapt to changes in our lives from these experiences and our level of subjective happiness tends to adjust back to hedonic neutrality.[4]
Diener, Lucas, and Scollon concluded that people are not hedonically neutral, and that individuals have different set points which are, in part, determined by their temperament. They also concluded that individuals may have more than one happiness set point, and that one's level of happiness is not just one given set point but can vary within a given range. In addition, researchers found that some individuals do experience substantial changes to their hedonic set point over time, though most others do not. This perpetuated the need for revisions to the theory.[5]
Happiness is determined not only by one's hedonic set point, but instead is also composed of circumstances and intentional activities. Research has concluded that one's level of happiness can be broken down to be 50% due to one's hedonic set point, 10% due to circumstances in their lives, and 40% due to intentional activities. Headey (2008) revised the original hedonic treadmill model to include life goals as important factors in one's overall level of subjective happiness.[6][7]
Studies of happiness across several countries have begun in recent years, testing the true limits of our hedonic set point. Several studies have concluded that up to 50% of our happiness level is genetic. This is what researchers are considering the main attribute in determining our happiness set point.[8]
The three primary factors making up a three factor model that determine our happiness can be broken down into a rough scale with Intentional Activity accounting for 40% and outside circumstances accounting for the last 10%, where genetics covers the largest 50% portion.[3]
Lykken & Tellegen (1996) performed a 10-year, longitudinal, twin study and found that genetic factors have a significant impact on overall level of happiness, specifically that genetic factors may account for at least 44-52% of one's subjective well-being. They did so by administering subjective well-being questionnaires to a sample of 1,093 sets of identical and fraternal twins at the onset of the study, and then again 10 years later. After controlling for socioeconomic level, educational attainment, income, marital status, and religious commitment, they found a correlation of 0.44 - 0.52. This is a significant relationship, considering that fraternal twins' scores showed a correlation of less than 0.1. The researchers also found that the controlled demographic variables accounted for no more than 3% of the variance.[2]
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 stable range in which their level of satisfaction varies. To measure the stability of one's level of well-being, 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. However, about a quarter of participants exhibited shifts in their level of life satisfaction over the course of the study, and 9% of participants experienced significant changes. They found that level of life satisfaction is more stable in the long run than it is in the short run, and that those with a higher mean level of life satisfaction also had more stable levels of life satisfaction.[9]
Heady concluded that life goals along with personality characteristics are important determinants of one's subjective well-being. He found that life goals that enrich one's relationships and social resources, such as altruistic and family oriented goals, increase their level of subjective well-being. On the other hand, he found that materialistic life goals, such as monetary achievement, have a negative effect on people's overall subjective well-being.[6]
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. Knowing that happiness can temporarily depart from one's given hedonic set point, determining when dips are occurring can be extremely helpful in treating conditions such as depression. When a dip occurs, clinical psychologists work with patients to recover from the depressive spell and return to their hedonic set point more quickly. In doing this, psychologists are helping to equip patients with the tools to combat any potential depressive spells that may arise in the future. Since approximately 40% of our level of subjective happiness is determined by intentional activities, one's proactive and deliberative action can drastically improve his or her overall happiness.[3] Psychotherapists provide patients with different altruistic activities (for example, a gratitude journal) that can help him or her return to their hedonic set point.[10][11]
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.[2]
The notion of Historical Neglect, that people tend to focus more on negative emotions than positive emotions, can become a great detriment to improving our happiness set point. Negative emotions require more attention and are remembered better, overshadowing any positive experiences that may even outnumber negative experiences.[2]
Ahmed and Koob (1998), in a study on moderate to excessive drug intake on rats, put forth that the use of mind altering drugs such as cocaine can overall change an individuals hedonic set point. While their study only provides an animal model for the relation between excessive drug usage and how it effects our hedonic set point.[12]