Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Subjective Well-Being and Hedonic Editing: How Happy People Maximize Joint Outcomes of Loss and Gain

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Happiness Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hedonic editing refers to the decision strategy of arranging multiple events in time to maximize hedonic outcomes (Thaler in Market Sci 4:199–214, 1985). The present research investigated the relationship between subjective well-being and hedonic editing. In Study 1, we gave participants pairs of social or financial events and asked them to indicate their preferences regarding the sequence and interval length between the two events. Compared to participants with lower subjective well-being, those with higher subjective well-being preferred to experience a social gain (e.g., chatting with a close friend) temporally closer to a financial loss, suggesting that happy individuals are more inclined than less happy individuals to use positive social events as cross-domain buffers against loss. In Study 2, participants were asked to select the type of positive event they would want to experience after a negative event. Happy individuals displayed a stronger preference for social events. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Subjective well-being (SWB) is a trait-like, stable state of happiness, which is consistent across time and situations (Diener et al. 1999; Sandvik et al. 1993). Findings from happiness research have shown that individuals with greater SWB are more likely to employ strategies that enhance hedonic outcomes than individuals with lower SWB. Recently, Robinson and Kirkeby (2005) demonstrated that one’s level of life satisfaction shapes how one organizes self-knowledge pertaining to emotional experiences and suggested that trait-like happiness should be regarded as a belief system. Thus, the present authors treated SWB as an independent variable that influences one’s behavior including decisions in the hedonic editing paradigm. In addition, it should be noted that in this article “happy people” refers to “those with high SWB” and the term “happiness” indicates “subjective well-being.”

  2. In order to understand the sequence by SWB interaction, we should first address the general preference for longer intervals in the gain-first sequences than in the loss-first sequences. There are several ideas that could explain why longer intervals were preferred for the gain-first sequence than for the loss-first sequence. For one, Loewenstein and Prelec (1993)’s “sequence frame effect” suggests that the strong preference for happy endings diminishes when the two events are presented with a longer interval and consequently cannot be perceived as a sequence. If there is no temporal relation between two events, people tend to follow the temporal discounting rules: take gains as soon as possible. Participants who chose the gain-first sequence might have aimed to minimize the discounting effect and tried to segregate two events. Another possible explanation could be found in the “contrast effect” (Elster and Loewenstein 1992; Tversky and Griffin 1991). The impact of a loss would be greater if it comes after a gain because people are sensitive to relative changes. Participants who chose the gain-first sequence might have tried to separate the loss from the gain in order to avoid the negative contrast. Conversely, shorter intervals for the loss-first sequence would provide positive contrasts that facilitate more favorable temporal comparisons. However, these explanations for general preferences cannot account for the finding that participants with higher SWB were more likely to place shorter intervals between the loss and gain events, even for the gain-first sequence. Happier individuals preferred to arrange the events so that the two events were temporally closer, regardless of the loss-gain sequences. It seems that for happier individuals, the loss-buffering effect outweighed the other effects. Although an interesting finding, we will not further discuss this in the current article since the sequence by SWB interaction was significant only for the same-domain pairs of the mixed-loss condition and because the cross-domain pairs with a social gain are our main focus. From Study 2 on, we discuss only the loss-first sequence that the majority of the participants preferred.

  3. We adopted the Freeman–Halton extension of the Fisher test (Freeman and Halton 1951) to compensate for a small sample size. The Chi-square test produced the same results for financial losses, χ 2 (2) = 6.39, p < 0.05; for academic losses, χ 2 (2) = 12.57, p < 0.01; and for social losses, χ 2 (2) = 2.48, ns.

References

  • Ambady, N., & Gray, H. M. (2002). On being sad and mistaken: Mood effects on the accuracy of thin-slice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 947–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74, 1773–1801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, F. B., & Veroff, J. (2007). Savoring: A new model of positive experience. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 348–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassel, J. (1976). The contribution of the social environment to host resistance. American Journal of Epidemiology, 104, 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., & Herbert, T. B. (1996). Health psychology: Psychological factors and physical disease from the perspective of human psychoneuroimmunology. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 113–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Interpersonal relationships as buffers of the impact of psychological stress on health. In A. Baum, J. E. Singer, & S. Taylor (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and health (pp. 253–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowley, E. (2008). The perils of hedonic editing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. P. (2011). The Eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Social Indicators Research, 100, 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Fujita, F. (1992). Extraversion and subjective well-being in a U.S. national probability sample. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 205–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 80–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Smith, H., & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., et al. (2009). New measures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 39, 247–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Avoidance achievement motivation: A personal goals analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1992). Utility from memory and anticipation. In G. F. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 213–234). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The influence of positive affect on the components of expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1055–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1998). Positive emotions speed recovery from the cardiovascular squeal of negative emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 191–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24, 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, G. H., & Halton, J. H. (1951). Note on an exact treatment of contingency, goodness of fit and other problems of significance. Biometrika, 38, 141–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D. M., et al. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 325–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Happiness, introversion–extraversion and happy introverts. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 595–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., & Hastie, R. (2006). Decision and experience: Why don’t we choose what makes us happy? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., Hastie, R., & Chen, J. (2008). Hedonomics: Bridging decision research with happiness research. Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 3, 224–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., & Leclerc, F. (1998). Will products look more attractive when evaluated jointly or when evaluated separately?. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2004). Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 680–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M. (2000). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 417–435). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 384–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M., Nygren, T. E., & Ashby, F. G. (1988). Influence of positive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses: It is just not worth the risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 710–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izuma, K., Saito, D. N., & Sadato, N. (2008). Processing of social and monetary rewards in the human striatum. Neuron, 58, 284–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4, 401–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting a changing taste: do people know what they will like? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Thaler, R. H. (2006). Anomalies: Utility maximization and experienced utility. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 221–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of choice under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konow, J., & Earley, J. (2008). The hedonistic paradox: Is homo economicus happier? Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaBarbera, P., & Gürhan, Z. (1997). The role of materialism, religiosity and demographics in subjective well-being. Psychology and Marketing, 14, 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S. S. (2006). Do investors integrate losses and segregate gains? Mental accounting and investor trading decisions. Journal of Business, 79, 2539–2574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linville, P. W., & Fischer, G. W. (1991). Preferences for separating and combining events: A social application of prospect theory and the mental accounting model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. F., & Prelec, D. (1993). Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychological Review, 100, 91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. F., & Sicherman, N. (1991). Do workers prefer increasing wage profiles? Journal of Labor Economics, 9, 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understanding extraverts’ enjoyment of social situations: The importance of pleasantness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56, 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyubomirsky, S., & Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison: A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1141–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, T., Seta, J., & Warring, D. (2007). Reflections of the self: How self-esteem determines decision framing and increases risk taking. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellers, B. A. (2000). Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 910–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16, 347–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morewedge, C. K., Gilbert, D. T., Keysar, B., Berkovitz, M. J., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Mispredicting the hedonic benefits of segregated gains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 700–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55, 56–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, M. N., & Andrews, L. (1983). The effect of mood and incentives on helping: Are there some things money can’t buy? Motivation and Emotion, 7, 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1990). Extraversion and happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1299–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redelmeier, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1996). Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: Real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain, 66, 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. D., & Kirkeby, B. S. (2005). Happiness as a belief system: Individual differences and priming in emotion judgements. Personaility and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1134–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, J., & Salovey, P. (1989). Health psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 533–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, W. T., Jr., & Simonson, I. (1991). Evaluations of pairs of experiences: A preference for happy endings. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 273–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandvik, E., Diener, E., & Seidlitz, L. (1993). Subjective well-being: The convergence and stability of self-report and non-self-report measures. Journal of Personality, 61, 317–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmuck, P., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic goals: Their structure and relationship to well-being in German and U.S. college students. Social Indicators Research, 50, 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, W. (1995). Multiple-discrepancies theory versus resource theory. Social Indicators Research, 34, 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism. New York, NY: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seta, J. J., Seta, C. E., & McElroy, T. (2002). Strategies for reducing the stress of negative life experiences: An averaging/summation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1574–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreckelmeyer, K. N., Krach, S., Kohls, G., Rademacher, L., Irmak, A., Konrad, K., et al. (2009). Anticipation of monetary and social reward differently activates mesolimbic brain structures in men and women. Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience, 4, 158–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2001). Money and subjective well-being: It’s not the money, it’s the motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 959–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36, 643–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self: Positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 379–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 320–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tugade, M. M., Fredrickson, B. L., & Barrett, L. F. (2004). Psychological resilience and positive emotional granularity: Examining the benefits of positive emotions on coping and health. Journal of Personality, 72, 1161–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Griffin, D. (1991). Endowment and contrast in judgments of well-being. In R. J. Zeckhauser (Ed.), Strategy and choice (pp. 297–318). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Updegraff, J. A., & Suh, E. M. (2007). Happiness is a warm abstract thought: Self-construal abstractness and subjective well-being. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varey, C., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Experiences extended across time: Evaluation of moments and episodes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 169–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. T. (2004). Self-framing of risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, W. F., & Bower, G. H. (1992). Mood effects on subjective probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 276–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Taekyun Hur, Cheongtag Kim, Hoon-jin Lee, and Eunkook M. Suh, for providing valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. This research was supported by the Center for Happiness Studies at Seoul National University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 151-742, Republic of Korea

    Sunhae Sul, Jennifer Kim & Incheol Choi

  2. Wisdom Science Center, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 136-701, Republic of Korea

    Sunhae Sul

Authors
  1. Sunhae Sul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Incheol Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sunhae Sul or Incheol Choi.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 77 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sul, S., Kim, J. & Choi, I. Subjective Well-Being and Hedonic Editing: How Happy People Maximize Joint Outcomes of Loss and Gain. J Happiness Stud 14, 1409–1430 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9379-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9379-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation