15/11/2010

Happiness,  well-­‐being,  positive  

Early  studies  showing  that  

Set  point  theory   psychology  
even  large  disturbances  
don t  have  lasting  effects,     The  ability  to  be  happy  and  contented  with  life  is  a  central  
criticisms,  and  newer  ideas   criterion  of  positive  mental  health  and  psychological  
about  modifying  the  set   adjustment  (Lyubomirksy  &  Abbe)  
point.    
  Factors:  life  satisfaction,  satisfaction  with  important  domains,  
positive  affect  and  low  levels  of  negative  affect  (Diener,  2000)  

  What  if  we  could  go  through  life  with  bad  things  happening  to  
us  and  know  that  we  will  always  return  to  a  neutral  state?  

  Or,  what  if  we  seek  increased  happiness  and  know  that  we  can  
never  be  happier  than  a  certain  set  point?  

 H.  Atkinson,  C.  Fischer,  S.  Gerbase  and  O.  Pollock  

What  is  set  point  theory?   Effects  of  set  point  theory  
  Also  known  as  Hedonic  Adaptation,  Hedonic  Treadmill  (Brickman  and     Individual  and  social  efforts  to  increase  happiness  are  doomed  to  
Campbell,  1971)   failure  (Diener  et  al,  2006)  
  Happiness  levels  fluctuate  around  a  biologically  determined  set  point     Every  desirable  experience  is  transitory  (Myers,  1992)  
that  rarely  changes  (Lucas,  2007)  
  But:  Protection  from  potentially  dangerous  psychological  and  
  People  can  adapt  to  almost  any  life  event  (Lucas,  2007)    
physiological  consequences  of  prolonged  emotional  states  (Lucas,  
  Destined  to  hedonic  neutrality   2007)  

  Return  to  their  previous  happiness  baseline  (Lyubomirsky  &  Abbe)     And:  Changes  in  current  environment  receive  extra  attention    

  Inborn  personality  factors  cause  an  inevitable  return  to  genetically     Empirical  support  
determined  happiness  set  points  (Lucas,  2007)  
  Happiness  and  unhappiness  are  just  short-­‐lived  reactions  to  changes  in  
people s  circumstances  (Diener  et  al  2006)    

Evidence  for  hedonic  adaptation   Scenarios  

  Life-­‐satisfaction  measures  are  stable  over  up  to  20  years     Pro:  Lottery  winners  were  not  happier  than  non-­‐winners  
and  people  with  paraplegia  were  not  substantially  less  
  Long  term  happiness  is  heritable   happy  than  those  who  can  walk  (Brickman  et  al,  1978)    
  Extraversion  and  Neuroticism  are  strong  predictors  of  happiness     Con:  Poorest  diseased  beggar  with  no  family  or  friends  
  à  Events  can  influence  short  term  levels  of  happiness  but     As  happy  as  the  healthy  billionaire  who  has  a  surfeit  of  close  
personality-­‐based  adaption  processes  inevitably  move  people   and  supportive  relationships  (Diener  et  al,  2006)  
back  to  their  genetically  determined  set  point  after  a  short  period  
of  time  

  Individuals  who  have  experienced  important  life  events  

1
 15/11/2010

Revisions  &  Criticisms  include   Early  Studies  

 
  More  specifics  on  neutrality  and  dependency  of  set  points   Brickman  and  Campbell  (1971)  
(Diener  et  al,  2006)    
   All  people  labor  on  "hedonic  treadmill“  
  Ability  to  increase  happiness  (Sheldon,  2002)  

  Very  serious  life  events  do  create  lasting  changes  in      Similar  to  sensory  adaptation,  emotion  system  adjusts  
subjective  well-­‐being  (Lucas,  2007)   to  current  life  circumstances  
  Impact  of  individual  differences  on  how  much  people  
adapt  (Lucas,  2007)      Briefly  react  to  good  and  bad  events  -­‐-­‐>  return  to  
neutrality    
  Lack  of  longitudinal  and  prospective  studies  (Lucas,  2007)  
   Happiness  &  unhappiness  =  short-­‐lived  reactions  to  
changes  in  circumstances  

Pursuit  of  happiness  -­‐  actually  futile   Brickman,  Coats,  Janoff-­‐Bulman  (1978)  
   
   
  As  we  rise  in  our  accomplishments  and  possessions,     Lottery  winners  and  patients  with  spinal-­‐cord  injuries  
expectations  also  rise   compared  to  control  group  

  Habituate  to  new  level  and  it  no  longer  makes  us  happy     Found:  Lottery  winners  not  significantly  happier  than  
 In  same  way,  people  are  unhappy  when  first  encounter   control  subjects  
misfortune,  but  soon  adapt-­‐-­‐it  no  longer  makes  them  
happy    
  Paraplegic  subjects  not  substantially  less  happy  than  
 
those  without  
  Adaptation  processes:  protect  people  from  potentially  
dangerous  psychological/physiological  consequences  of  
prolonged  emotional  states    

Silver    (1982)   Suh,  Diener,  Fujita  (1996)  

 
   
Further  work  on  spinal  cord  injury      

  Immediately  after  accident  =  extremely  unhappy,  but   In  less  than  3  months,  effects  of  many  major  life  events  lost  
adapted  quickly   impact  on  SWB  
 
  Within  8  weeks  =  positive  emotions  predominated  over  
  Cancer  patient,  during  study  informed  that  cancer  in  
negative  emotions  
remission  

  Downward  trend  in  unpleasant  emotions,  upward  trend  in  

positive  emotions     Mood/happiness  levels  skyrocketed,  but  2  days  later  
returned  to  former  baseline  
  Return  to  baseline  conditions  of  mood  for  most  subjects    

2
 15/11/2010

Demographic  Variables   Personality    

Campbell,  Converse,  Rodgers  (1976)  

  Further  research  (Lucas)  –  E  and  N  relatively  strong  
 
predictors  of  happiness  compared  to    external  factors  
  10  resources:  income,  number  of  friends,  religious,  faith,  
intelligence,  education    
  While  events  influence  short-­‐term  happiness  levels,  
  All  counted  for  only  1.5%  of  variance  in  happiness   personality-­‐based  adaptation  processes  will  inevitably  
move  these  back  to  genetically  determined  set-­‐point  
  Even  physical  health  barely  correlated  with  SWB  
Diener,  Wolsic,  Fujita  (1995)  
 
  Objective  physical  attractiveness  correlated  at  very  low  levels  

Some Criticisms of Set-Point Theory Diener, Lucas and Scollon (2006) believe that set-point theory [aka the hedonic
treadmill, (Brickman & Campbell, 1971)] does have value, however it needs
updating.

Ed Diener 5 main criticisms

“Dr Happiness” 1.  Set-points are not hedonically neutral

2.  Set-points differ between people, partly depending on their temperament

   
3.  A person may have several set points for happiness

4.  Well being set-points can move under some conditions.

5.  People differ in their adaptation to certain events with some changing their
set-points and others not.

1.  Set-­‐points  are  not  hedonically  neutral   Diener, Lucas and Scollon (2006) believe that set-point theory [aka the hedonic
treadmill, (Brickman & Campbell, 1971)] does have value, however it needs
updating.

5 main criticisms
Most  people  are  happy  most  of  the  time    
(Diener  &  Diener,  1996)   1.  Set-points are not hedonically neutral

  2.  Set-points differ between people, partly depending on their temperament

In  the  World  Values  Survey  of  2006,  80%  of  respondents  said   3.  A person may have several set points for happiness
that  they  were  very  or  quite  happy.  
4.  Well being set-points can move under some conditions.
 
So  Diener  believes  that  if  people  do  adapt  and  return  to  a   5.  People differ in their adaptation to certain events with some changing their
set-points and others not.
baseline  then  it s  a  positive  one,  not  a  neutral  one.  

3
 15/11/2010

2.  Set-­‐points  differ  between  people,  partly  depending  on  their   Diener, Lucas and Scollon (2006) believe that set-point theory [aka the hedonic
treadmill, (Brickman & Campbell, 1971)] does have value, however it needs
temperament   updating.

  Set  points  vary  considerably  between  individuals.  This  is  partly  due  to   5 main criticisms
inherent,  personality-­‐based  influences  (Diener  and  Lucas,  1999;  )  
  1.  Set-points are not hedonically neutral
  Personality  factors  are  strong  correlates  of  well  being  variables…  This  
may  be  because  traits…  and  I  quote  Lyubomirsky,  Sheldon,  and  Schkade     2.  Set-points differ between people, partly depending on their temperament
(2005)...  
3.  A person may have several set points for happiness
   “are  cognitive,  affective  and  behavioural  complexes  that  are  consistent  
across  situations    and  across  life  span”*     4.  Well being set-points can move under some conditions.
 
 …and  hence  may  be  able  to  account  for  some  of  the  stability  of  the  set   5.  People differ in their adaptation to certain events with some changing their
point.     set-points and others not.

 McCrae  and  Costa  (1990)  have  shown  impressive  long  term  stability  for  all  
‘big  5’  traits…  especially  those  which  are  most  related  to  well  being  
   
 Enough  said  here…  lets  move  on!  *Terms  and  Conditions  apply…    
 
 
 

3.  A  person  may  have  several  set  points  for  happiness     Diener, Lucas and Scollon (2006) believe that set-point theory [aka the hedonic
treadmill, (Brickman & Campbell, 1971)] does have value, however it needs
updating.

  Diener, Lucas, & 5 main criticisms

  Scollon, 2006, pp.307)
1.  Set-points are not hedonically neutral
 
2.  Set-points differ between people, partly depending on their temperament
 
  3.  A person may have several set points for happiness

  4.  Well being set-points can move under some conditions.

  5.  People differ in their adaptation to certain events with some changing their
  set-points and others not.

Different forms of well-being can move in different directions.

4.  Well  being  set-­‐points  can  move  under  some  conditions.     Diener, Lucas and Scollon (2006) believe that set-point theory [aka the hedonic
treadmill, (Brickman & Campbell, 1971)] does have value, however it needs
updating.

  There are strong national differences in well being. These

5 main criticisms
differences can be predicted by objective characteristics of these
nations. This allows us to assume that the stable external
circumstances can have a lasting impact on happiness. 1.  Set-points are not hedonically neutral

2.  Set-points differ between people, partly depending on their temperament

Diener, Diener and Diener (1995) found that wealth and human
rights of nations were strong predictors of average national well
being. 3.  A person may have several set points for happiness

4.  Well being set-points can move under some conditions.

European Values Study Group and World Survey Association (2005)
yielded data showing life satisfaction differences:
5.  People differ in their adaptation to certain events with some changing their
Canada - 7.85, US - 7.66… Turkey - 5.61, Russia - 4.65
set-points and others not.
  Fujita and Diener (2005) conducted a 17 year longitudinal study
using a large representative sample in Germany. They found that
24% of respondents changed significantly from their baseline.

4
 15/11/2010

5.  People  differ  in  their  adaptation  to  certain  events  with  some  
changing  their  set-­‐points  and  others  not.  

Future  Research  
Study  on  adaptation  to  marriage  revealed  that  less  satisfied  
individuals  were  more  likely  to  benefit  from  marriage,  and  
for  longer  (Lucas  et  al.,  2003).  
 
For  any  individual,  events  that  deviate  from  their  typical  life  
experiences  cause  most  change.  
 

Processes  Underlying  Hedonic  

Methodology   Adaptation  

•  Mostly  panels  used  so  far:  limits  psychological     What  psychological  processes  does  adaptation  result  
variables  assessed   from?  
  Reduced  emotional  reactivity?  
  Change  in  the  way  we  think  about  life  events?  
•  Better  methodology  will  allow:  
•  Investigation  of  moderator  variables  and  their  potential  effects  
  How  much  control  does  one  have  over  adaptation?  
•  Identification  of  events  to  which  people  cannot  adapt     Do  some  components  of  well-­‐being  adapt  more  easily  than  
  others?  

Individual-­‐Level  Characteristics   Happiness-­‐Increasing  Interventions?  

  Clarify  characteristics  that  promote/prevent  adaptation     Many  questions  to  be  answered  before  effective  
  Personality   interventions  can  be  designed  
  Demographic  characteristics     Discover  factors  that  control  adaptation  process  
  Personality  x  gene  interaction?     Lyubomirsky,  Sheldon  &  Schkade  (2005)  
o  Intentional  activity  as  the  most  promising  means  of  altering  
•  Why  do  adaptation  effects  vary  accross  different  
one’s  happiness  level?  
events  and  circumstances?  
 

5

Oh, and don’t forget…
If any ladies fancy some ‘lunch’…
Just Call.
+1(001)-773-338-7786
Ed x
15/11/2010
Criticisms: Key References
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill:
Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist,
61, 305-314.
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing Happiness:
The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology,
9 (2), 111–131
Criticisms: Other Reading
Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon.
Psychological Science, 7, 186-189.
Headey, B., Muffels, R., & Wagner, G. G. (2010). Long-running German panel
survey shows that personal and economic choices, not just genes, matter for
happiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,107 (42),
17922-17926.