Docstoc

Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill Revising the Adaptation Theory of

Document Sample
Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill Revising the Adaptation Theory of Powered By Docstoc
					Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill
   Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being




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

• Brickman and Campbell’s (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”..
• 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.
• The authors themselves also readily accepted the theory,
  and some of Diener’s 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.
 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.
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 of
    well-being variable. Eg any single
    demographic factor typically correlates
    less than 0.2 with well-being….personality
    much more.
Revision 3: Multiple Set Points
• 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.
Revision 4: Happiness can change
   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.
    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.
Reappraisal=more positive emotions, older
    individuals=humour.
•   2)Personality characteristics influence coping eg.
Neuroticism=ineffective coping strategies
Optimism=active coping/ strategies that can change the
    situation.
                 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.
        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?
               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.

				
DOCUMENT INFO