Hedonic Treadmill

Explaining the Hedonic Treadmill?

To grasp the meaning of this term is useful to picture any kind of rodent in a never ending wheel
that it cannot step out from, searching for food or anything that can fulfill its needs. Now human
needs and search for pleasure is much more complicated to imagine. Despite the fact of the
complexity of human experience, this model has been used to understand how happiness works in
human beings since 1971 when Brickman and Campbell published their famous article “Hedonic
relativism and planning the good society” where they proposed that happiness is rather a stable
state that does not correspond with mayor positive or negative events in life.

In this sense, happiness obeys the rules of adaptation similar to what happens with smells or
tastes, emotions adapt to the previous level of happiness experienced before. Furthermore, in
1978, Brickman et al presented the next investigation in the subject titled "Lottery Winners and
Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?" where they placed people in three groups: control group,
accident victims that were paralyzed, and lottery winners. The strongest hypothesis would be that
the lottery winners were expected to be significantly happier than the control group and even
more than the victims of accidents, but they found that they all experienced more or less the same
stable emotion after a period of 3 months.

What is the Hedonic Treadmill?

Overall the basic definition is that humans have a tendency of coming back to the same level of
happiness or satisfaction, regardless that extraordinary events happen in their lives. In other
words, these strong emotions positive or negative are temporary, and in most cases they return to
the previous state. This model suggests that even with life changing events and despite all efforts
the level of satisfaction cannot be modified.

Brickman and Campbell have been pioneers in the explanation of a rather relative concept, basing
their theory in the fixed pattern of adaptation where a stimulus presented constantly tends to
fade into the background. For example, this explains why people that make money cannot stop
making more money and always want more, once they bought a yate, now they want a plain and
then they want a bigger yate and it becomes a never ending story. This cycle goes both ways
towards positive or negative outcomes, and happiness is never at the end of the rainbow.

Scientific evidence support and controversy

In the decade of 1980 and 1990, several scientific studies were done to proof this theory giving it
strong empirical basis. Variables like income, negative or positive physical traits and health related
problems, were measured and correlated with the level of happiness. Results always showed a
very weak link between them and no cause-effect relation.

As expected, this model has brought on along a lot of controversy, but it has not lost its value and
was supported in 1992 by David Myers with his book “The Pursuit of Happiness” where he gives
adaptation a crucial role in the pleasure hunt. Other authors also supported fully the idea of the
Hedonic treadmill theory.

However, Diener, Lucas and Scollon in 2006 after a whole decade of studies; introduced strong
modifications to the model based on their research which have shifted investigation variables
from the on. They introduced the following considerations which will be briefly explained:
  Happiness´ set point is not neutral

In this first modification, Diener et al argue that returning to a neutral set point is not possible,
considering that there is no set point is not per se for everyone. In their multiple studies, they
found that people reported mostly being quite happy, which means that the starting emotion is
not neutral. Therefore, people always have an emotion as a baseline.

 The set point is individualized

They establish here that personality traits and genetics play an important role in how people
perceive their well-being, and they supported this modification mostly on comparing identical
twins and dizygotic twins that grew-up in different settings. Identical twins experienced similar
levels of happiness and dizygotic twins could significantly vary in their reports and this gave clue to
individual differences in this matter.

 Multiple set points can be accounted for

The revision of multiple set points is based on people´s different roles in life. One person can be a
husband or wife, an employee, a dad or mom, a son or daughter, a friend all at the same time in
his or her life and can have positive or negative emotions at the same time in the same day. This
was supported by research developed by them and other investigators, setting apart the idea of
happiness as a concept that involved a single unique baseline.

 Happiness can change

Diener and his colleagues were sure that the most controversial statement of the Hedonic
treadmill theory was partially untrue, that despite efforts or other conditions happiness reamin
unchanged; and that there were variables that could demonstrate otherwise. For this affirmation,
they assembled demographic evidence in order to compare countries and nations that had
different lifestyle measured by divorce rates, life expectancy, gross domestic product, political
circumstances, human rights respect, among others. They also conducted a longitudinal study in
Germany, where they followed a large sample of subjects throughout 17-years. Even though
stability was registered, 24% of the subjects experienced significant changes in their happiness
baseline, which over threw, in their opinion, the thesis that happiness could not change and that it
depends partially in other individuals and social conditions.

 Individual differences in adaptation

This last discussion was more of a conclusion for these researchers, who dedicated their life work
to the study of happiness as Brickman did. They introduced, with vast scientific evidence, the idea
that individual differences have to be taken into account and that a model of happiness cannot
ignore this crucial variation among the people.

What is happiness?
After decades of accumulating this great scientific evidence supporting and rejecting this theory,
one should always pose the question of what instruments were used to measure happiness and
most of all the definition of happiness. To compare investigations and draw valid conclusions, it is
mandatory some level of rigorousity when science is the objective, which leads to the ultimate
question if happiness a topic for science? Or it is more in the philosophical ground?

The whole idea of making a model that explains such a complex concept as happiness could be
considered even outrageous. Great philosophers as Aristotle and Plato dedicated a great deal of
their work revolving around the idea of happiness, pleasure and love.

For instance, Aristotle defined things through their activities and their purposes, but happiness,
considered by him as the state of well-being, is a purpose in its self which is inferred by this
important quote from his Nicomachean Ethics:

And of this nature happiness is mostly thought to be, for this we choose always for its own sake,
and never with a view to anything further: whereas honor, pleasure, intellect, in fact every
excellence we choose for their own sakes, it is true, but we choose them also with a view to
happiness, conceiving that through their instrumentality we shall be happy: but no man chooses
happiness with a view to them, nor in fact with a view to any other thing whatsoever.

How can science really grasp the meaning of the essence of mankind as Aristotle defined it?
Patterns can be proposed and even proven useful, but reducing the essence can lead to stop
thinking about profound notions such as ethics. Abandoning the complexity that consciousness
provides the human specie influences the way society and its rules are built.

Quiz
1. What does Brickman imply with the Hedonic treadmill term?

A. Happiness is a rollercoaster.
B. Happiness is always evolving.
C. Happiness is stable.

Answers: C. Hedonic treadmill is a model that describes happiness as a stable state that does not
change with mayor positive or negative events. Emotions are boosted temporarily with different
events, but their return to baseline in inevitable.

2. Does the Hedonic treadmill have scientific evidence support?

A. Yes, several studies were conducted to correlate many variables and the level of happiness, and
always showed a weak correlation.
B. No, it is just a model that didn´t have any impact in the study of happiness.
C. Yes, all variables that have been studied in different investigations correlate strongly with the
level of happiness showed by subjects.

Answer: A. Yes, between 1980 and 1990, several scientific studies were done to proof this theory
giving it strong empirical basis. Variables like income, negative or positive physical traits and
health related problems, were measured and correlated with the level of happiness, the results
always showed a very weak link between them.
3. Is the Hedonic Treadmill completely accepted to fully explain happiness?

A. Yes. Evidence supports that humans have a tendency of coming back to the same level of
happiness or satisfaction, regardless that extraordinary events happen in their lives.
B. Yes. Despite of recent research, the model remained unchanged, because it explains how
people experience happiness in the majority of the population.
C. No. Robust scientific evidence suggests that happiness is not a stable state and it is experienced
different by people throughout the world, depending on social and individual variables.

Answer A. Diener et al. destined decades of research studying the Hedonic Treadmill theory trying
to demonstrate its accuracy, and reached to the conclusion that individual differences have to be
taken into account and that a model of happiness cannot ignore this crucial variation among the
people.

4. What are the 5 considerations that were introduced by Diener et al?

A. The set point is not neutral, the set point is individualized, the existence of multiple set points,
Happiness can change and individual differences in adaptation.
B. The set point is neutral, the set point is individualized, the existence of multiple set points,
happiness cannot change and individual differences in adaptation.
C. The set point is not neutral, the set point is individualized, the existence of multiple set points,
Happiness can change and adaptation is a general condition.

Answer A. Diener et al theorized that the Hedonic treadmill model was lacking variables such as
the existence of multiple set points of happiness, that happiness could change and that individual
differences should be taken into account in adaptation.

References
Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H.
Appley (Ed.), Adaptation level theory: A symposium (pp. 287–302). New York: Academic Press

Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is
happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 917–927

Diener, E., Lucas, R.E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the
adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61, 305–314.