Why do advent calendars work?
How a shut door, a daily limit and a visible end date turn waiting into the reward, step by step.
Answer to the question
Why do advent calendars work?
Advent calendars work because they turn a wait into a daily event. A shut door gives a specific, small thing to want each morning, and the calendar sets a slow pace that research on consumption rate links with greater enjoyment. Studies of anticipation, breaks and pace test the parts of that design.
Key takeaways
- Daniel Z. Lieberman and Michael E. Long, in The Molecule of More, treat dopamine as the chemical of anticipation and wanting and not of pleasure, which suits a door that gives a reason to want the next morning.
- A 1997 review in Science led by Wolfram Schultz reported that dopamine-producing neurons in primates appear to signal changes or errors in the prediction of future rewards.
- Five experiments led by Leaf Van Boven found more intense emotion when people looked forward to an event than when they recalled one, linked to mental simulation of the event.
- Leif Nelson and Tom Meyvis found across six studies that interrupting a pleasant experience made it more enjoyable afterwards, even though people tended to avoid such breaks.
- Jeff Galak, Justin Kruger and George Loewenstein found that people who set their own pace of consumption enjoyed it less than people given a slower pace.
Advent calendars work because they sell a wait in daily portions. Each small door stays shut until its date, hides something modest, and leaves the next door closed behind it. The chocolate, toy or tea inside matters less than the twenty-three mornings that lead to the last door. What psychology can say about advent calendars is mostly about that waiting, and each part of the box lines up with something researchers have measured in studies of anticipation, breaks and the pace of enjoyment.
A shut door turns the wait into the reward itself
Daniel Z. Lieberman and Michael E. Long, in The Molecule of More, argue that dopamine is best understood as the chemical of anticipation and wanting, not of pleasure. The pull towards a reward is one process and the enjoyment of it is another. Advent calendars fit that split closely, because the thing they deliver every morning is a specific, small reason to want the next morning.
The laboratory side of the idea concerns prediction. A 1997 review in Science led by Wolfram Schultz drew together work showing that dopamine-producing neurons in the primate brain appear to signal changes or errors in the prediction of future rewards. Advent calendars hold a prediction steady. The reward behind each door is known in kind and in timing, so what recurs is not the surprise of getting something but the renewal of an expectation, every day, for twenty-four days.
That is why the door matters more than the contents. An open box hands over the reward at once and leaves nothing to want, while a shut door gives a date. Researchers separate wanting from liking, the split behind Wanting Is Not Liking, and advent calendars lean on the first of the two: the doors keep supplying the wanting while the modest treats supply the liking.
The small size of the reward belongs to the same logic. On this reading, a treat light enough to finish in a minute cannot compete with the next door, so attention moves on to tomorrow. Advent calendars with a large daily gift would turn each morning into an event of its own, and the wait between the events would count for less.
The mind pictures each opening long before the door moves
Five experiments led by Leaf Van Boven found that people reported more intense emotion when they looked forward to an event than when they looked back on one. The events included positive ones such as Thanksgiving Day, and the difference was linked to mental simulation, the habit of running an event through the mind before it happens. Looking ahead, on this evidence, is the more vivid direction.
Each door is a small event to picture the evening before, a daily prompt for that simulation, and the days run towards a larger one with its own meal, decorations and visitors. How much of a pleasure sits in the wait and how much in the event is weighed in What Anticipation Actually Adds, which finds that the wait usually raises the event and does not replace it.
The same result bears on what happens after a door is opened. Recalling an event produced less intense emotion than expecting it, so an opened door slips into the paler direction while the closed doors still ahead hold the stronger pull. Advent calendars keep most of their doors in the vivid direction for most of December.
The visible end date adds a second pull. People work harder as a goal gets closer, the pattern covered in What is the goal gradient effect, and a row of opened doors is a plain measure of distance travelled. The sequence also stays unfinished until the last day. The urge to carry on with something left open is real, but as The Zeigarnik Effect at the Credits explains, it comes from wanting to resume and not from remembering the unfinished item better.
A daily limit keeps a small treat enjoyable for longer
Taken as a design, advent calendars supply four ingredients.
- A fixed cue, a door that opens on one date and no other.
- A small reward, light enough to be wanted again the next day.
- A limit on pace, set by the calendar and not by the person opening it.
- A visible end, so the count of closed doors is also a count of days left.
The experiments cited here tested the parts and none used a calendar, so how the parts add up to the tradition is our reading, and the third ingredient is the least obvious one with the most direct support.
Leif Nelson and Tom Meyvis ran six studies in which interrupting a pleasant experience, such as listening to a song or sitting in a massage chair, made it more enjoyable afterwards, because the break disrupted adaptation, the fading of pleasure with continued exposure. Participants tended to avoid breaks in pleasant experiences and to choose them in unpleasant ones, which is the reverse of what the results favoured. Twenty-four doors build in twenty-four breaks.
An advent calendar also assigns the slower pace in advance. Jeff Galak, Justin Kruger and George Loewenstein found that people who choose how fast to consume something they like tend to go too quickly and tire of it sooner than they would at a slower rate, and that they underestimate how much longer breaks between episodes help. In their experiments, participants who set their own pace enjoyed the experience less than participants who were given a slower one.
Common questions
Why do advent calendars work?
They turn a wait into a daily event. A shut door gives a specific, small thing to want each morning, and the calendar sets a slow pace that research on consumption rate links with greater enjoyment.
Why does one door a day feel better than opening them all at once?
In experiments on consumption pace, people who chose their own rate went too fast and enjoyed the experience less than people given a slower rate. Breaks between episodes also made pleasant experiences more enjoyable afterwards.
Is the pleasure in the treat or in the wait?
Researchers separate wanting from liking. Lieberman and Long treat dopamine as the chemical of anticipation, and a calendar supplies the wanting every morning while the treat supplies the liking. The studies tested the parts of the idea and not a calendar.
Does picturing the opening in advance matter?
Five experiments by Van Boven and colleagues found stronger emotion when people looked forward to an event than when they looked back, linked to mental simulation of the event.
Sources
Lieberman, D. Z., & Long, M. E. The Molecule of More. Seed book; vault hub Books/The Molecule of More.
Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275(5306), 1593-1599. doi:10.1126/science.275.5306.1593 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5306.1593
Van Boven, L., & Ashworth, L. (2007). Looking forward, looking back: Anticipation is more evocative than retrospection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 289-300. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.289 https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.289
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 https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.654
Galak, J., Kruger, J., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Slow down! Insensitivity to rate of consumption leads to avoidable satiation. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 993-1009. doi:10.1086/666597 https://doi.org/10.1086/666597