Hedonic Adaptation After the Purchase
The glow of a new purchase goes on a timetable, and simple choices change its speed. In six experiments published in 2008, a break in a pleasant experience made what followed more enjoyable, although people chose not to take one.
Answer to the question
Why does the joy of a new purchase fade so fast?
Because of hedonic adaptation: reactions to a change shrink as the change becomes normal. In 1978, 22 major lottery winners were no happier than comparison participants and enjoyed mundane events less. The fade is not total, though: a 2020 Swedish study found lasting gains in life satisfaction, and 2008 experiments found that breaks slow it.
Key takeaways
- In Philip Brickman's 1978 study, 22 major lottery winners were no happier than 22 comparison participants and took less pleasure in mundane events.
- A 2020 study of Swedish lottery players found that large-prize winners reported higher life satisfaction for more than a decade after their win.
- In six studies published in 2008 and led by Leif Nelson, breaks made pleasant experiences more enjoyable, although people chose to avoid them.
Why does a thing you wanted for months stop registering within weeks? The phone that felt like an event in its first fortnight becomes the object you reach for without looking, and the sofa you measured three times becomes furniture. In the research on hedonic adaptation, nothing about the object has changed, and usually the owner has not either. What has changed is the comparison, because the purchase has joined the background against which the next thing is judged. The live question about any new purchase is how quickly its glow goes, and whether a buyer can do anything to slow it.
Lottery winners and ordinary pleasures
Lottery winners are the standard test, because a jackpot is the purest version of a purchase: a large, sudden gain that arrives without effort and can buy almost anything. If a change in circumstances could lift happiness and keep it lifted, a big win should.
A study led by Philip Brickman put that to the test with twenty-two major lottery winners, twenty-two comparison participants and twenty-nine people paralysed in accidents, who had been interviewed earlier. The winners were no happier than the comparison group, and they took significantly less pleasure from a list of mundane events. A second study in the same paper found that the result was not explained by differences between people who buy lottery tickets and people who do not.
The authors' explanation had two parts. The thrill of winning made ordinary pleasures look small by contrast, and habituation wore down the new pleasures that the money made possible. Both mechanisms reach well beyond lotteries. A first-class flight can make the next economy seat feel worse, and a new kitchen soon stops being the thing a person notices on walking in.
Twenty-two winners is a small sample, happiness was measured with a single question, and the paralysed group, often remembered as having bounced back, rated their present happiness clearly lower than the winners did. The study supports the idea that a windfall does less than people expect. It never showed that people adapt to everything.
A much larger study, published in 2020, found otherwise. It surveyed Swedish lottery players between 5 and 22 years after a major win, followed an analysis plan registered in advance, and compared winners with matched controls. Large-prize winners reported higher life satisfaction that persisted for more than a decade, with no sign of dissipating. The effects on happiness and mental health were significantly smaller, and satisfaction with personal finances appeared to drive much of the gain. The glow of something new fades reliably under hedonic adaptation, while a large and lasting change in circumstances can lift how people judge their lives for years.
Good news and bad news alike
A 1999 review chapter led by Shane Frederick, written for an edited volume on the foundations of hedonic psychology, defined hedonic adaptation as a reduction in the emotional intensity of circumstances, favourable and unfavourable alike. The chapter surveyed evidence on four kinds of bad news, noise, imprisonment, bereavement and disability, and four kinds of good news, food, erotic images, increases in wealth and cosmetic surgery, before turning to the factors that speed adaptation up or slow it down.
That symmetry gives a buyer some consolation. A mind that kept every pleasure at full volume would keep every loss there too, so whatever dulls the new car also softens the dent in it. The chapter ends on the costs of adaptation for individuals and for society, a reminder that the process is neither good nor bad in itself.
A mind that kept every pleasure at full volume would keep every loss there too.
A 2006 revision in American Psychologist argued that the original treadmill model needed five changes. Set points, the levels people drift back to, are not emotionally neutral. They differ between people, partly with temperament. A person can have several, because pleasant feelings, unpleasant feelings and life satisfaction can move in different directions. Set points can shift under some conditions, and people differ in whether a given event shifts theirs. For a purchase, the component that counts day to day is usually the first of those three, the pleasant feeling, and it can fade while satisfaction with life as a whole holds steady.
Experiences against material possessions
If objects fade, the obvious next question is whether some kinds of spending fade more slowly than others. In two surveys led by Leaf Van Boven and published in 2003, respondents from various demographic groups said that experiential purchases, those made mainly to have an experience, had made them happier than material ones. A laboratory follow-up found that people felt more positive after thinking about an experience they had bought than after thinking about an object. The authors suggested three reasons: experiences are more open to flattering reinterpretation in memory, they become part of who people think they are, and they tend to involve other people.
A 2009 study in the Journal of Consumer Research added a condition. The advantage held when the purchase went well. When it went badly, experiences offered no advantage and, for some buyers, produced less happiness than a disappointing object. The authors traced both results to the same cause, that hedonic adaptation runs more slowly for experiences, which keeps the good feeling and the bad one alive for longer.
A 2020 meta-analysis pooled 360 effects from 141 studies. It supported the experiential advantage, but estimated that about a third of the effect may be due to publication bias, the tendency for positive results to reach print more often than null ones. The advantage was tied more to feeling connected to others than to happiness as such, and it shrank for negative experiences, for experiences taken alone, and for people with fewer resources. A separate 2018 study found no advantage at all for people of lower social class, who were sometimes made happier by material purchases.
The case for interruptions
Interrupting a pleasure sounds like a way to spoil it. In six studies published in 2008 and led by Leif Nelson, people listened to songs and noises or sat in a massage chair, with or without an interruption. Breaks disrupted hedonic adaptation and made the experience that followed more intense, so pleasant experiences became more enjoyable and unpleasant ones more irritating. People's choices pointed the other way. Given the choice, they avoided breaks in pleasant experiences and chose them in unpleasant ones, which is the opposite of what would have served them best.
Breaks disrupted hedonic adaptation and made the experience that followed more intense.
Much of what people buy is consumed continuously, which gives hedonic adaptation an easy run: an album on repeat for a week, a box set watched in two sittings, a holiday with no change of pace. Pausing a favourite album, or putting the fork down during a good meal, gives adaptation less to work with. Unpleasant tasks are better done in one sitting, since a break made an irritating noise worse once it resumed. Money spent on experiences shared with other people keeps its value better than money spent on experiences taken alone, and a bad experience will sting for longer than a bad object.
A philosopher on wanting more
Long before any of these studies, Alan Watts made a related argument in The Wisdom of Insecurity, first published in 1951. In chapter IV, "The Wisdom of the Body", he argued that stimulation dulls the senses, so that pleasure needs ever stronger stimulants, and that human desire is insatiable for this reason. In chapter II he pressed the point: the same sensitivity that deepens pleasure deepens dread, so the familiar strategy of buying more pleasure as insurance against future pain cannot work, even in principle. The book is a philosophical essay that argues rather than measures. Its claim is about the self that wants security, and the escalation of desire is one illustration of it.
Watts's escalation argument runs together two things that later research separates, the fading of pleasure and the growth of craving, which is the territory of wanting and liking. On the first, the evidence agrees with him in part: pleasure from a new thing does fade, and the lottery winners took less joy in ordinary events. On the stronger claim, that every gain is consumed and nothing lasts, the Swedish data disagree, and the interruption studies show that the speed of the fade is partly in the buyer's hands. His description of the problem is sounder than the totality of his conclusion.
What the research leaves a buyer with is a more modest account of desire, in which the glow of a new thing fades at a pace that breaks and shared experiences can slow, a disappointing experience lingers in the same way a good one does, and the larger changes in a life can leave people more satisfied with their lives for many years after the novelty itself has gone.
Common questions
Why does the joy of a new purchase fade so fast?
Because of hedonic adaptation, the process by which reactions to a change shrink as it becomes normal. In 1978, 22 major lottery winners were no happier than 22 comparison participants and took less pleasure in mundane events. A 1999 review found the same fading after good news and bad.
Did lottery winners really end up no happier?
In the small 1978 study, yes. A larger study of Swedish lottery players published in 2020 found that large-prize winners reported higher life satisfaction that lasted more than a decade, although effects on day-to-day happiness and mental health were smaller. Hedonic adaptation dulls the glow without erasing every gain.
Do experiences make people happier than things?
Usually, with conditions. Leaf Van Boven's 2003 surveys found people happier with experiential purchases, and a 2020 meta-analysis of 141 studies supported the advantage while estimating that about a third of it may reflect publication bias. The advantage shrank for bad experiences, solitary ones and buyers with fewer resources.
Can you slow hedonic adaptation?
Partly. In six studies published in 2008 and led by Leif Nelson, breaks in a pleasant experience, such as a song or a massage, made what followed more enjoyable, even though people preferred not to be interrupted. Spacing out pleasures follows from that result.
Sources
Watts, A. (2021 [1951]). The Wisdom of Insecurity. Rider (first published 1951 by Pantheon Books). Read in full by this publication, with a reliability audit. Ch. IV, "The Wisdom of the Body", pp. 55-74: stimulation dulls the senses so that pleasure requires ever stronger stimulants; ch. II, "Pain and Time": the same sensitivity deepens pleasure and dread. Cited for Watts's argument only, never as evidence.
Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 917-927. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917. Abstract read (Europe PMC): 22 major lottery winners, 22 controls, 29 paralysed accident victims interviewed previously; winners not happier than controls and took significantly less pleasure from mundane events; Study 2 ruled out preexisting differences between ticket buyers and non-buyers. Single-item happiness measure and group means (winners 4.00, controls 3.82, accident victims 2.96; winners against victims significant) from the World Database of Happiness catalogue entry.
Lindqvist, E., Östling, R., & Cesarini, D. (2020). Long-run effects of lottery wealth on psychological well-being. The Review of Economic Studies, 87(6), 2703-2726. doi:10.1093/restud/rdaa006. Abstract read: Swedish lottery players surveyed 5 to 22 years after a major lottery event, pre-registered analysis; large-prize winners show sustained increases in overall life satisfaction persisting for over a decade with no evidence of dissipating; effects on happiness and mental health significantly smaller; financial life satisfaction an important mediator.
Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 302-329). Russell Sage Foundation. Abstract read: adaptation defined as a reduction in the affective intensity of favourable and unfavourable circumstances; reviews noise, imprisonment, bereavement and disability, and foods, erotic images, increases in wealth and cosmetic surgery; factors that promote or impede adaptation; negative consequences for individuals and society.
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305-314. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.305. Abstract read: five revisions; set points not hedonically neutral, differ between people partly with temperament, multiple set points for pleasant emotions, unpleasant emotions and life satisfaction, set points can change, individuals differ in adaptation.
Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1193-1202. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1193. Abstract read (Europe PMC): two surveys across demographic groups; laboratory experiment on pondering experiential against material purchases; explanations: positive reinterpretation, identity, social relationships.
Nicolao, L., Irwin, J. R., & Goodman, J. K. (2009). Happiness for sale: do experiential purchases make consumers happier than material purchases? Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 188-198. doi:10.1086/597049. Abstract read (publisher page): advantage only for positive outcomes; for negative outcomes no advantage and, for some, less happiness; attributed to slower adaptation to experiential purchases.
Weingarten, E., & Goodman, J. K. (2021). Re-examining the experiential advantage in consumption: a meta-analysis and review. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(6), 855-877 (published online 16 September 2020). doi:10.1093/jcr/ucaa047. Abstract read: 360 effect sizes from 141 studies; d = 0.383, 95 per cent CI 0.336 to 0.430; approximately a third of the effect may be attributable to publication bias; more tied to relatedness than to happiness; reduced for negative and solitary experiences, lower socioeconomic status consumers, and when utilitarian benefits are similar.
Lee, J. C., Hall, D. L., & Wood, W. (2018). Experiential or material purchases? Social class determines purchase happiness. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1031-1039. doi:10.1177/0956797617736386. Abstract read: experiential advantage for higher social class; none for lower social class, who were happier with material purchases or equally happy.
Nelson, L. D., & Meyvis, T. (2008). Interrupted consumption: disrupting adaptation to hedonic experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 654-664. doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.6.654. Abstract read (Crossref): six studies; noises, songs, massage chair; breaks disrupt hedonic adaptation and intensify the subsequent experience; consumers avoid breaks in pleasant experiences and choose breaks in unpleasant ones.