The Hedonic Treadmill: Why More Never Feels Like Enough

The original idea

In 1971, Philip Brickman and Donald Campbell published a chapter titled “Hedonic relativism and planning the good society”. Drawing on adaptation level theory from perception research, they argued that people judge their experiences relative to what they have become used to. As circumstances improve, expectations rise with them, and the improvement stops feeling like one. They called this the hedonic treadmill, and suggested it might make it impossible to raise a society’s happiness simply by raising its prosperity.

In 1978, Brickman, Dan Coates and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman published a study comparing 22 lottery winners, 29 people who had become paraplegic or quadriplegic after accidents, and a control group. The lottery winners were not significantly happier than the controls in their general ratings, and they took less pleasure in everyday activities. The accident victims rated themselves less happy than controls, but not as low as most people would predict. The study became the emblem of adaptation: big changes seemed to matter less, in the long run, than people expect.

What later research found

Decades of research since then have refined the theory. In a 2006 review titled “Beyond the hedonic treadmill”, Ed Diener, Richard Lucas and Christie Napa Scollon proposed several revisions.

• The baseline is not neutral. Most people’s baseline is mildly positive, not zero.
• People differ. Baselines vary between individuals, partly for temperamental reasons.
• There is more than one baseline. Different aspects of wellbeing, such as positive feelings and life satisfaction, can move in different directions.
• Set points can change. Wellbeing is not fixed for life.
• Adaptation varies by event. Some events, especially long term unemployment, disability and the loss of a spouse, can lower wellbeing for years, and people do not always fully return.

So the strong version of the treadmill, that nothing matters in the long run, is wrong. The weaker version, that we adapt to most improvements in our circumstances faster and more completely than we expect, is well supported, especially for material gains.

Why adaptation happens

Several mechanisms seem to be involved.

• Novelty fades. Attention is drawn to change. Once something becomes constant, we notice it less.
• Expectations rise. What was a luxury becomes a baseline, and the absence of it becomes a loss.
• Comparison shifts. With a new income or house, you often move into a new comparison group, where you are again in the middle.
• Adaptation has a function. It also helps people recover from bad events. The same process that dulls the pleasure of a new car helps people rebuild after a loss.

That last point matters. Adaptation is not a design flaw. It is part of what makes humans resilient. The problem is not that we adapt, but that we keep expecting the next purchase to be the one that does not fade.

The Stoics saw this coming

The Stoics did not have the term, but they described the treadmill clearly.

Seneca, in his second letter to Lucilius, writes that it is not the person who has too little who is poor, but the one who craves more. In the sixteenth, quoting Epicurus, he says that natural desires are limited, but those born of opinion have no limit, because a false thing has no end. Whatever you have, you will want more.

Epictetus describes the same mechanism from another angle. People think they would be content if they had a little more, and when they get it, they find the same feverish wanting still there. The cure, he says, is not getting what you desire, but removing the desire.

The Stoic diagnosis fits the modern data well. If you treat preferred indifferents, wealth, status, comfort, as goods, you will always be on the treadmill, because there is always more of them. The way off is not giving them up but changing what you measure your life by.

How to step off

The research and the Stoics point in similar directions.

Want what you have

The Stoic practice of negative visualization, briefly imagining the loss of what you have, works directly against adaptation. It restores the sense that what has become normal is not guaranteed. William Irvine argues this is one of the most useful Stoic techniques for contentment. Gratitude exercises studied by psychologists work in a similar way.

Vary and savor

Adaptation is weaker when pleasures are varied, unexpected and savored. Spacing them out, paying full attention to them and not turning them into routine all slow the fade. A favorite meal eaten every day stops being a pleasure. Eaten now and then, with attention, it stays one.

Invest in what adapts slowly

Research suggests that people adapt less to experiences, relationships and meaningful activities than to possessions. Time with friends, learning a skill, work that matters, helping others: these tend to keep their value. In Stoic terms, they are closer to the real goods of character and relationship.

Stop treating more as the measure

The deepest step is the Stoic one. If you measure your life by how much you have, the treadmill is guaranteed. If you measure it by how you live, whether you act with wisdom, courage, justice and moderation, there is no treadmill, because there is no “more” to chase. See eudaimonia.

Practice having less

Seneca’s recommendation of occasional voluntary poverty also works against the treadmill. A few days of simplicity reset expectations and make ordinary comforts visible again. See voluntary discomfort.

What this does not mean

Stepping off the treadmill does not mean giving up on improving your life. Better health, more financial security and good work are preferred indifferents, worth pursuing. And for people without enough, more money genuinely improves wellbeing. The point is not to stop wanting things, but to stop expecting the next thing to settle the question of whether your life is good.