Set
point
theory
Early studies showing that
even large disturbances
don’t have lasting effects,
criticisms, and newer ideas
about modifying the set
point.
H. Atkinson, C. Fischer, S. Gerbase and O. Pollock
Happiness, well-being, positive
psychology
 “The ability to be happy and contented with life is a central
criterion of positive mental health and psychological
adjustment” (Lyubomirksy & Abbe)
 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?
What is set point theory?
 Also known as Hedonic Adaptation, Hedonic Treadmill (Brickman and
Campbell, 1971)
 Happiness levels fluctuate around a biologically determined set point
that rarely changes (Lucas, 2007)
 People can adapt to almost any life event (Lucas, 2007)
 Destined to hedonic neutrality
 Return to their previous happiness baseline (Lyubomirsky & Abbe)
 Inborn personality factors cause an inevitable return to genetically
determined happiness set points (Lucas, 2007)
 Happiness and unhappiness are just short-lived reactions to changes in
people’s circumstances (Diener et al 2006)
Effects of set point theory
 Individual and social efforts to increase happiness are doomed to
failure (Diener et al, 2006)
 Every desirable experience is transitory (Myers, 1992)
 But: Protection from potentially dangerous psychological and
physiological consequences of prolonged emotional states (Lucas,
2007)
 And: Changes in current environment receive extra attention
 Empirical support
Evidence for hedonic adaptation
 Life-satisfaction measures are stable over up to 20 years
 Long term happiness is heritable
 Extraversion and Neuroticism are strong predictors of happiness
  Events can influence short term levels of happiness but
personality-based adaption processes inevitably move people
back to their genetically determined set point after a short period
of time
 Individuals who have experienced important life events
Scenarios
 Pro: Lottery winners were not happier than non-winners
and people with paraplegia were not substantially less
happy than those who can walk (Brickman et al, 1978)
 Con: Poorest diseased beggar with no family or friends
 As happy as the healthy billionaire who has a surfeit of close
and supportive relationships (Diener et al, 2006)
Revisions & Criticisms include
 More specifics on neutrality and dependency of set points
(Diener et al, 2006)
 Ability to increase happiness (Sheldon, 2002)
 Very serious life events do create lasting changes in
subjective well-being (Lucas, 2007)
 Impact of individual differences on how much people
adapt (Lucas, 2007)
 Lack of longitudinal and prospective studies (Lucas, 2007)
Early Studies
Brickman and Campbell (1971)
 All people labor on "hedonic treadmill“
 Similar to sensory adaptation, emotion system adjusts
to current life circumstances
 Briefly react to good and bad events --> return to
neutrality
 Happiness & unhappiness = short-lived reactions to
changes in circumstances
Pursuit of happiness - actually futile
 As we rise in our accomplishments and possessions,
expectations also rise
 Habituate to new level and it no longer makes us happy
In same way, people are unhappy when first encounter
misfortune, but soon adapt--it no longer makes them
happy
 Adaptation processes: protect people from potentially
dangerous psychological/physiological consequences of
prolonged emotional states
Brickman, Coats, Janoff-Bulman (1978)
 Lottery winners and patients with spinal-cord injuries
compared to control group
 Found: Lottery winners not significantly happier than
control subjects
 Paraplegic subjects not substantially less happy than
those without
Silver (1982)
Further work on spinal cord injury
 Immediately after accident = extremely unhappy, but
adapted quickly
 Within 8 weeks = positive emotions predominated over
negative emotions
 Downward trend in unpleasant emotions, upward trend in
positive emotions
 Return to baseline conditions of mood for most subjects
Suh, Diener, Fujita (1996)
In less than 3 months, effects of many major life events lost
impact on SWB
 Cancer patient, during study informed that cancer in
remission
 Mood/happiness levels skyrocketed, but 2 days later
returned to former baseline
Demographic Variables
Campbell, Converse, Rodgers (1976)
 10 resources: income, number of friends, religious, faith,
intelligence, education
 All counted for only 1.5% of variance in happiness
 Even physical health barely correlated with SWB
Diener, Wolsic, Fujita (1995)
 Objective physical attractiveness correlated at very low levels
Personality
 Further research (Lucas) – E and N relatively strong
predictors of happiness compared to external factors
 While events influence short-term happiness levels,
personality-based adaptation processes will inevitably
move these back to genetically determined set-point
Some Criticisms of Set-Point Theory
Ed Diener
“Dr 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.
5 main criticisms
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
Most people are happy most of the time
(Diener & Diener, 1996)
In the World Values Survey of 2006, 80% of respondents said
that they were very or quite happy.
So Diener believes that if people do adapt and return to a
baseline then it’s a positive one, not a neutral one.
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
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.
2. Set-points differ between people, partly depending on their
temperament
 Set points vary considerably between individuals. This is partly due to
inherent, personality-based influences (Diener and Lucas, 1999; )
 Personality factors are strong correlates of well being variables… This
may be because traits… and I quote Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, and Schkade
(2005)...
“are cognitive, affective and behavioural complexes that are consistent
across situations and across life span”*
…and hence may be able to account for some of the stability of the set
point.
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…
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
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.
3. A person may have several set points for happiness
Diener, Lucas, &
Scollon, 2006,
pp.307)
Different forms of well-being can move in different directions.
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
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.
4. Well being set-points can move under some conditions.
 There are strong national differences in well being. These
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.
Diener, Diener and Diener (1995) found that wealth and human
rights of nations were strong predictors of average national well
being.
European Values Study Group and World Survey Association (2005)
yielded data showing life satisfaction differences:
Canada - 7.85, US - 7.66… Turkey - 5.61, Russia - 4.65
 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.
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
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.
5. People differ in their adaptation to certain events with some
changing their set-points and others not.
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.
Future Research
Methodology
• Mostly panels used so far: limits psychological
variables assessed
• Better methodology will allow:
• Investigation of moderator variables and their potential effects
• Identification of events to which people cannot adapt
Processes Underlying Hedonic
Adaptation
 What psychological processes does adaptation result
from?
 Reduced emotional reactivity?
 Change in the way we think about life events?
 How much control does one have over adaptation?
 Do some components of well-being adapt more easily
than others?
Individual-Level Characteristics
 Clarify characteristics that promote/prevent adaptation
 Personality
 Demographic characteristics
 Personality x gene interaction?
• Why do adaptation effects vary accross different
events and circumstances?
Happiness-Increasing Interventions?
 Many questions to be answered before effective
interventions can be designed
 Discover factors that control adaptation process
 Lyubomirsky, Sheldon & Schkade (2005)
o Intentional activity as the most promising means of altering
one’s happiness level?
Oh, and don’t forget…
If any ladies fancy some ‘lunch’…
Just Call.
+1(001)-773-338-7786
Ed x
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), 1792217926.