Happiness, Well-being and Goodlife (Part2)
Hedonic Adaptation
Hedonic adaptation suggests that the impact of both positive and negative events on people’s perception of their happiness (subjective well-being and satisfaction with life) will be reduced over time. It includes the concept of a “happiness set point,” suggesting that we generally maintain a constant level of happiness throughout our lives despite the events. This idea has been conceptualised as a “hedonic treadmill” since people must continually work to maintain a certain level of happiness.
Hedonic adaptation involves cognitive and emotional changes, including shifts in our values, attention and goals, as well as changes in how we interpret the new situation. Moreover, desensitisation of our neurochemical pathways (in the brain) limits positive or negative emotions. The other factor in hedonic adaptation is our tendency to construct elaborate justifications for our circumstances through a process that social theorist Gregg Easterbrook (American writer, 1953) calls "abundance denial".
“Life has gotten dramatically better for almost everyone in the Western world during the past half-century, yet people are no happier. Happiness must come from within; money cannot buy it. Whether or not we obtain happiness will probably always be unrelated to whether life is getting better”
Brickman and Campbell (1971) introduced the term “Hedonic Treadmill” in their article "Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society." They described how people tend to maintain a steady level of happiness, even as their circumstances change.
Frederick and Lowenstein (1999) mentioned three things that affect hedonic adaptation. a) shifting adaptation levels, b) desensitisation and c) sensitisation.
Shifting adaptation levels happen when someone’s idea of what is normal changes, but they can still notice differences in experiences. For example, after a pay raise, people feel happier at first, but soon get used to the higher salary and return to their usual happiness level. Still, they enjoy getting a bonus.
Desensitisation decreases our sensitivity in general, which reduces our sensitivity to change. For example, those who have lived in war zones for extended periods may become desensitised to the daily destruction and emotionally become less affected by losses that once were shocking or too upsetting.
Sensitisation happens when someone’s response to a stimulus becomes stronger over time. For example, a loud noise might startle a person, and if it keeps happening, their reaction can become even more intense. This is common in trauma survivors. For instance, a car backfiring might sound like a gunshot to a war veteran, causing them to take cover even when there is no real danger.
Harry Helson, an American psychologist, introduced Adaptation Level theory in 1947. This theory says that how we perceive things depends on what we have experienced before. Our judgments are shaped by current norms and past experiences. In other words, our behavior adapts based on what has happened to us, not just on what we expect. The adaptation level changes over time and with different situations. Helson’s theory, developed through experiments, interested both psychologists and economists studying welfare and behavior.
Later, Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman (1978) studied the hedonic treadmill using Helson’s Adaptation Level theory. The hedonic treadmill works like other forms of adaptation—people can become more or less sensitive to situations, which helps them adjust. In their study, “Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?”, they compared lottery winners and paraplegics to a control group. They found that after the initial shock of positive or negative events, people’s happiness usually returned to normal levels. This interview-based study, though not long-term, started much of the research on how happiness is relative.
Adaptation level theory explains hedonic adaptation by showing that both comparison and getting used to things (habituation) keep a big win from making us as happy as we might expect. After a peak experience, everyday pleasures feel less special, and over time, even new pleasures lose their impact.
In one study, researchers compared 22 major lottery winners, 22 control participants, and 29 accident victims who were paralyzed. As expected, lottery winners were not happier than the control group and enjoyed everyday events less.
The dynamic equilibrium theory of subjective well-being (Headey and Waring, 1992), also called set point theory, suggests that changes in well-being are linked to time. Personality traits and life events also play a strong role in how well-being changes.
At first, dynamic equilibrium theory said that everyone has a personal set point for well-being and returns to it after major life events. However, new evidence suggests that some people experience lasting changes in their well-being. People with traits like extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience are more likely to have significant changes in life satisfaction.
Brickman and Campbell first suggested that everyone returns to the same neutral set point after a major emotional event. But in their 2006 review, “Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill, Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being,” Diener, Lucas, and Scollon found that people have different set points, which can be partly inherited. They also found that people may have more than one happiness set point, like one for life satisfaction and another for subjective well-being. So, happiness can vary within a range, and the set point can change over time. People also adapt at different rates and to different extents, depending on their circumstances.
Hedonic Adaptation Prevention
Unlike hedonic adaptation, some things can boost happiness and help it last longer, leading to sustainable happiness. Two models—the “sustainable happiness model” and the “hedonic adaptation prevention model”—along with adding variety to life, may help people stay at the higher end of their happiness range for longer.
The sustainable happiness model (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon & Schkade, 2005) says that long-term happiness depends on three things: your set point, your life circumstances, and your intentional activities. The set point is mostly fixed, and life circumstances are often hard to change. However, intentional activities—like being kind, showing gratitude, and savoring good moments—are choices we can make. These activities are the best ways to fight hedonic adaptation and keep happiness going longer.
The Hedonic Adaptation Prevention model describes two ways people adapt: first, positive emotions from a good change fade over time; second, people start wanting even more positive experiences. The model also suggests two ways to prevent this: keep appreciating the original change and add variety to related experiences.
People get used to positive changes because their expectations rise and the good feelings fade. However, lasting happiness is possible if we slow down adaptation by appreciating what we have and adding more variety to our lives.
Adding variety to life is the best way to fight boredom and reduce hedonic adaptation. Doing different positive activities helps keep happiness levels high. Variety brings new experiences and emotions, helping people stay at the top of their natural happiness range (Sheldon, Boehm and Lyubomirsky, 2013).
Sustainable Happiness
Sustainable happiness also means thinking about well-being on a global scale. This approach encourages us to consider sustainability and how we can improve life for ourselves, our communities, and the world. Catherine O’Brien (2010) defined sustainable happiness as seeking happiness without harming others, the environment, or future generations. This idea has great potential for individuals, communities, and global well-being.
Sustainable happiness recognizes that our well-being is connected to other people, animals, and the environment. Our choices can help or harm both ourselves and others. Sometimes, what makes us happy can hurt our community or the planet. Sustainable happiness can also mean finding joy in simple things or making positive lifestyle changes. For example, expressing gratitude can help counter negative messages from the media that suggest we are not enough.
Resources and Further Reading
Lyubomirsky, S. (2010). 11 Hedonic Adaptation to Positive and Negative Experiences. The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping, 200.
Folkman, S. (Ed.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping. Oxford University Press.
Sheldon, K. M., Boehm, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Variety is the spice of happiness: The hedonic adaptation prevention model. The Oxford handbook of happiness, 901-914.
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The challenge of staying happier: Testing the hedonic adaptation prevention model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 670-680.
Bao, K. J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014). Using the Hedonic Adaptation Prevention Model to Extend the Success of Positive Interventions. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions, 373.
Headey, B. Subjective Well-Being: Revisions to Dynamic Equilibrium Theory using National Panel Data and Panel Regression Methods. Soc Indic Res 79, 369–403 (2006).
Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn, M. J., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & van der Heijden, P. G. (2005). Finances and well-being: a dynamic equilibrium model of resources. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(3), 210.
Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 731–739.
Luhmann, M., & Intelisano, S. (2018). Hedonic adaptation and the set point for subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.
Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). The promise of sustainable happiness.
O’Brien, C. (2008). Sustainable happiness: How happiness studies can contribute to a more sustainable future. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(4), 289.
O’Brien, C. (2016). Education for sustainable happiness and well-being. Routledge.
Gross National Happiness
The term “Gross National Happiness” was first used in 1979 by Bhutan’s king, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, during an interview at Mumbai airport. He said, "Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product,” sharing an idea that had been growing since 1970.
In 2008, Gross National Happiness (GNH) became a major project for Bhutan’s government, using the index to measure the country’s overall happiness and well-being. In 2011, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution called "Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development," encouraging countries to follow Bhutan’s lead and calling happiness a "fundamental human goal."
In 2012, at the “Well-being and Happiness: Defining a New Economic Paradigm” convention led by Bhutan’s prime minister and the UN secretary-general, the first World Happiness Report was released. Soon after, March 20 was declared the International Day of Happiness.
GNH, which measures a nation’s collective happiness, was designed as a holistic and sustainable way to guide development. It aims to balance material and non-material values, based on the idea that people naturally seek happiness. The goal is to achieve balanced growth in all areas important for happiness.
The GNH index covers traditional areas like living standards, health, and education, as well as newer areas like cultural and psychological well-being. It was created to reflect the overall well-being of Bhutan’s people, not just their personal feelings of happiness.
GNH focuses on collective happiness, harmony with nature, and traditional values. It is based on four main pillars: sustainable and fair economic development, environmental conservation, preserving and promoting culture, and good governance.
GNH measures happiness in nine areas: psychological well-being, health, use of time, education, cultural diversity and resilience, good governance, community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience, and living standards.
There are 33 indicators within these nine domains. The GNH index measures well-being by looking at each person’s achievements in each area. It sorts people into four groups: unhappy, narrowly happy, extensively happy, and deeply happy. The goal is to understand happiness levels and find ways to help those who are less happy.
Each domain uses both self-reported and objective measures. All domains are weighted equally, but the indicators within them are weighted differently. The impact of each domain depends on a person’s situation. For example, someone who works all the time and has little time for family may have a lower GNH than someone who spends more time with loved ones. This shows that people are often happier when they have a balanced life.
Many local and national governments, like those in the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates, have tried to measure happiness and well-being, often called Beyond GDP. However, they have not used Bhutan’s GNH index. Some cities, companies, and organizations in the US and other countries have also adopted sustainability practices inspired by GNH.
Criticism of GNH
Several scholars have noted that Bhutanese GNH’s values are distinctly Buddhist, as Buddhism is the core of the country’s cultural values. In contrast, the other models are designed for secular governments (or organisations) and do not include religious behaviour as a measurement component.
Critics have described Bhutanese GNH as a propaganda tool that the government uses to distract from the ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses it has committed. The Bhutanese (relatively) democratic government started in 2008. Before then, the government practised massive ethnic cleansing of the non-Buddhist population (Nepalese of the Hindu faith) in the name of GNH cultural preservation.
According to Human Rights Watch, "Over 100,000 people of Nepalese origin and Hindu faith were expelled (throughout the 1990s) from the country because they would not integrate with Bhutan’s Buddhist culture.” The Refugee Council of Australia stated that “it is extraordinary and shocking that a nation can get away with expelling one-sixth of its people (at the time) and somehow keep its international reputation largely intact. The Government of Bhutan should be known, not for Gross National Happiness but for Gross National Hypocrisy."
Some critics point to Bhutan’s low standard of living. A 2004 article in The Economist said, “The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is not a fairy tale paradise; it is home to perhaps 900,000 people, most of whom live in grinding poverty.” Other criticisms mention rising political corruption, the spread of diseases like AIDS and tuberculosis, gang violence, abuse against women and minorities, shortages of food and medicine, and economic hardship.
Even Mr Tobgay, Bhutan’s prime minister between 2013 and 2018, has cast doubt on the country’s pursuit of GNH. He told AFP (an international news agency based in Paris) that “the concept is overused and masks problems with corruption and low standards of living.” While he supported the notion that economic growth is not the be-all and end-all of development, he acknowledged that GNH should not distract from tackling Bhutan’s pressing problems, including chronic unemployment, poverty and corruption.
In the early 2010s, Bhutan’s government banned tobacco, limited TV channels and internet access, required traditional dress in public, and imposed travel restrictions, among other strict measures. The government supports GNH, but only when happiness aligns with obedience. According to the World Happiness Report 2019, Bhutan ranked 95th out of 156 countries.
Difficulties with Measuring Happiness
First, happiness is hard to define. While people understand what it means in different situations, there is no single definition that everyone agrees on or that can be measured easily. Second, happiness is vague and subjective, making it difficult to fit into a numerical scale.
Even with a simple, universal definition, turning happiness into a scale (like 1 to 5) is difficult. People may not agree on what the highest or lowest points mean. For example, does a five mean the happiest you can imagine or just the happiest you expect to be? Answers also depend on things like socioeconomic status, upbringing, and culture. As Professor Mark D. White notes, “An easily satisfied pauper may report a higher happiness level than a prince who is never satisfied.”
Third, even if we could define and measure happiness, it’s not clear how to use these measures in social policies. Should governments try to maximize happiness, and if so, at what cost? How would they handle choices between short-term pleasure and long-term fulfillment, like going to medical school or training for the Olympics?
Psychological research suggests that genetics account for about 50% of our happiness, and our choices make up about 40% (see happiness pie chart). This means that policies may not have much effect on making people happier for long. If this controversial research is correct, efforts to define and measure happiness might not be very useful.
In the end, these problems are mostly abstract and can’t be fixed just by better measurement. Happiness is too vague to define clearly, too subjective to measure with numbers, and too complex to turn into policy without a lot of debate. If a government really wants to improve happiness and well-being, the best approach is to let people decide for themselves what happiness means, as Professor Mark D. White suggests.
Why not Gross Domestic Product?
During the 1940s, wartime needs and problems with economic measurements led to the creation of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This index measures the value of a country’s goods and services each year. (Domestic means national.)
It took several decades for GDP to become the standard way to compare countries, which happened in the 1960s. GDP has been a key measure of development and prosperity, but it does not consider environmental effects, income inequality, health, welfare, or happiness.
What matters most to people goes beyond GDP. As Robert F. Kennedy famously said, “GDP measures everything, except that which makes life worth living.”
Since the 1990s, there has been a need for a new way to measure progress—one that shows not just what we produce, but also whether it is sustainable, fair, environmentally friendly, and helps people live happier, healthier lives.
To meet these needs, economists and social scientists have created several new ways to measure progress. These include the Human Development Index, Green GDP, Genuine Progress Indicator, Social Progress Index, Policy Effectiveness Index, Happy Planet Index, Better Life Index, Canadian Index of Well-being, and Bhutan’s GNH. All of these look at health, happiness, education, the environment, and living standards to give a fuller picture of real life and help policymakers make better decisions.
In 2008, former French president Nicolas Sarkozy set up a commission to find an alternative to GDP. The commission, comprising Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi, published its findings in 2009. They recommended measuring health, education, environment, jobs, material well-being, social connections, political involvement, sustainability, and equality to help governments better understand how people are really living.
Measuring welfare, well-being, and happiness is still a significant challenge. Creating policies that improve social and personal well-being—including freedom and human rights—is even harder. Traditional measures like GDP and other financial indicators are no longer enough. We need to go beyond GDP, measure well-being more fully, and use these results to guide policies that improve quality of life.
Resources and Further Reading
Zurick, D. (2006). Gross national happiness and environmental status in Bhutan. Geographical Review, 96(4), 657-681.
Daga, G. (2014). Towards a New Development Paradigm: Critical Analysis of Gross National Happiness Index.
Bates, W. (2009). Gross national happiness. Asian‐Pacific Economic Literature, 23(2), 1-16.
Priesner, S. (2004). Gross National Happiness–Bhutan’s vision of development and its challenges. Indigeneity and Universality in Social Science: A South Asian Response, 212-232.
White, M. D. (2014). The problems with measuring and using happiness for policy purposes. Mercatus Research.
White, M. D. (2014). Happiness. In “The Illusion of Well-Being (pp. 9-49)”. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
