Social Indicators Research

, Volume 85, Issue 3, pp 389–403 | Cite as

The Set-Point Theory of Well-Being: Negative Results and Consequent Revisions

  • Bruce HeadeyEmail author


An adequate theory of happiness or subjective well-being (SWB) needs to link at least three sets of variables: stable person characteristics (including personality traits), life events and measures of well-being (life satisfaction, positive affects) and ill-being (anxiety, depression, negative affects). It also needs to be based on long-term data in order to account for long-term change in SWB. By including personality measures in the 2005 survey, the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) became the first available dataset to provide long-term evidence about personality and change in one key measure of SWB, namely life satisfaction. Using these data, the paper suggests major revisions to the set-point theory of SWB; revisions which seek to account for long-term change. Previously, theory focused on evidence that individuals have their own set-point of SWB and revert to that set-point once the psychological impact of major life events has dissipated. But the new SOEP panel data show that significant minorities record substantial and apparently permanent upward or downward changes in life satisfaction. The paper aims to explain why most people’s SWB levels do not change, but why a minority do. The main new result, which must be regarded as tentative until replicated, is that the people most likely to record large changes in life satisfaction are those who score high on the personality traits of extraversion (E) and/or neuroticism (N). These people in a sense ‘roll the dice’ more often than others and so have a higher than average probability of recording long-term changes. Data come from the 3130 SOEP respondents who rated their life satisfaction every year from 1985 onwards, among whom 2843 also completed a set of questions about their personality in 2005.


well-being set-point theory panel data 


  1. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  2. Baltagi, B. H. (1995). Econometric analysis of panel data. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Brickman, P. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appleby (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory (pp. 287–302). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brickman, P. D., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 917–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2004). Unemployment alters the set point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influences of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1991). NEO PI-R. PAR: Odessa, Fla.Google Scholar
  8. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Zonderman, A. B. (1987). Environmental and dispositional influences on well-being. Longitudinal follow-up of an American national sample. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 299–306.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, R. J. (1992). Emotion and affective style: hemispheric substrates. Psychological Science, 3, 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, R. J. (2002). Anxiety and affective style: role of prefrontal cortex and amygdala. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: revising the adaptation theory of well-being, American Psychologist, 61, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 25, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David, & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth (pp. 89–125). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Easterlin, R. A. (2005). Building a better theory of well-being. In L. Bruni, &P. Porta (Eds.), Economics and happiness: framing the analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. G. B. (1969). Personality structure and measurement. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  16. Frank, R. H. (1985). The demand for unobservable and other nonpositional goods. American Economic Review, 75, 279–301.Google Scholar
  17. Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 302–329). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Frijters, P., Haisken-Denew, J. P., & Shields, M. A. (2004). Money does matter! Evidence from increasing real incomes and life satisfaction in East Germany following reunification. American Economic Review, 94, 730–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fujita, F., & Diener (2005). Life satisfaction set-point: stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 158–164.Google Scholar
  20. Gerlitz, J.-Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-five-basierten Persoenlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. Scholar
  21. Headey, B. W., & Wearing, A. J. (1989). Personality, life events and subjective well-being: toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Headey, B. W., & Wearing, A. J. (1992). Understanding happiness: a theory of subjective well-being. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
  23. Headey, B. W. (2006). Revisions to dynamic equilibrium theory using panel data and panel regression methods, Social Indicators Research, 79, 369–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirsch, F. (1976). Social limits to growth. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Huppert, F. (2005). Positive mental health in individuals and populations. In F. Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne (Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 307–340). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3–25). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, T. S. (1957). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lane, R. E. (2000). The loss of happiness in market democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Larsen, R. J. (1992). Neuroticism and selective encoding and recall of symptoms: evidence from a combined concurrent-retrospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: reactions to change in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lucas, R. E., & Baird, B. M. (2004). Extraversion and emotional reactivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 473–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7, 186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lykken, D. (2000). Happiness: the nature and nurture of joy and contentment. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  35. Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1046–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mehnert, T., Kraus, H. H., Nadler, R., & Boyd, M. (1990). Correlates of life satisfaction in those with a disabling condition. Rehabilitation Psychology, 35, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ng, Y.-K. (1978). Economic growth and social welfare: the need for a complete study of happiness, Kylos, 31, 575–587.Google Scholar
  38. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies, Psychological Bulletin, 132, 3–27.Google Scholar
  39. Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1997). Extraversion, neuroticism and susceptibility to positive and negative affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 607–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scitovsky, T. (1976). The joyless economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2006). Love, work and changes in extraversion and neuroticism over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1152–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Selye, H. (1950). The physiology and pathology of exposure to stress. Montreal, Canada: ACTA INC. Medical Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2004). Achieving sustainable new happiness: prospects, practices and prescriptions. In P. A. Linley, &S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 127–145). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. SOEP Group (2001). The German Socio-Economic Panel after more than fifteen years – overview. In E. Holst, D. R. Lillard, & T. A. DiPrete (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2000 fourth international conference of the German Socio-Economic Panel study users: DIW Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 70, Berlin.Google Scholar
  45. Wengle, H. (1986). The psychology of cosmetic surgery: a critical overview of the literature 1960–1982. Part 1. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 16, 435–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wessman, A. E., & Ricks, D. F. (1966). Mood and personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  47. Wortman, C. B., & Silver, R. C. (1987). Coping with irrevocable loss. In G. R. Vanderbos, & B. K. Bryant (Eds.), Cataclysms, crises, catastrophes: psychology in action. Washington, D.C.: APA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations