Social Indicators Research

, Volume 97, Issue 1, pp 7–21 | Cite as

The Set Point Theory of Well-Being Has Serious Flaws: On the Eve of a Scientific Revolution?

  • Bruce HeadeyEmail author


Set-point theory is the main research paradigm in the field of subjective well-being (SWB). It has been extended and refined for 30 years to take in new results. The central plank of the theory is that adult set-points do not change, except temporarily in the face of major life events. There was always some ‘discordant data’, including evidence that some events are so tragic (e.g. the death of one’s child) that people never regain their set-point. It was possible to dismiss these events as ‘exceptions’ and maintain the theory. However, several new findings are emerging, which cannot be dismissed as ‘exceptions’ and which appear to require substantial revisions or replacement of set-point theory. Many of these findings are based on the German Socio-Economic Panel Survey (SOEP 1984-), which provides the longest available time series on life satisfaction. Despite its centrality, the concept of the set-point is often not precisely defined. In this paper three alternative working definitions are offered. Depending on which definition is used, it is found that over 20 years 14–30% of German panel members recorded large and apparently permanent changes in their set-points. Changes of this magnitude are not compatible with set-point theory as currently understood. The challenge for SWB researchers now is to develop a theory which can account for change as well as stability.


Set-point theory Scientific paradigm Subjective well-being Stability and change 


  1. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social Indicators of Well-Being. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  2. Argyle, M. (2001). The Psychology of Happiness. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Brickman, P. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation Level Theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brickman, P. D., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulmann, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 917–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. R. (1976). The Quality of American Life. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, A. E., Diener, E., Georgellis, Y., & Lucas, R. E. (2008). Lags and leads in life satisfaction: A test of the baseline hypothesis. Economic Journal, 118, 222–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1991). NEO PI-R. Odessa, Flde: PAR.Google Scholar
  10. Cummins, R. A. (1995). On the trail of the gold standard for life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 35, 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson, R. J. (1992). Emotion and affective style: Hemispheric substrates. Psychological Science, 3, 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson, R. J. (2002). Anxiety and affective style: Role of prefrontal cortex and amygdale. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1995). Resources, personal strivings and subjective well-being: A nomothetic and ideographic approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 926–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213–229). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. Psychological Science, 61, 305–314.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. G. B. (1969). Personality structure and measurement. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  20. Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research on the happiness measures’. Social Indicators Research, 20, 353–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frank, R. H. (1985). The demand for unobservable and other nonpositional goods. American Economic Review, 75, 279–301.Google Scholar
  22. 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). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Fujita, F., & Diener, E. (2005). Life satisfaction set-point: Stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholgy, 88, 158–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerlitz, J.-Y. & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persoenlichkeitsmerk-male im SOEP.
  26. Gottman, J. M. (1996). What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Headey, B. W. (2006). Subjective well-being: Revisions to dynamic equilibrium theory using national panel data and panel regression methods. Social Indicators Research, 79, 369–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Headey, B. W. (2008a). The set-point theory of well-being: Negative results and consequent revisions. Social Indicators Research, 85, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Headey, B. W. (2008b). Life goals matter to happiness: A revision of set-point theory. Social Indicators Research, 86, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Headey, B. W., & Wearing, A. J. (1989). Personality, life events and subjective well-being: Towards a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Headey, B. W., & Wearing, A. J. (1992). Understanding happiness: A theory of subjective well-being. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
  32. Hirsch, F. (1976). Social limits to growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Huppert, F. (2005a). 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
  34. Huppert, F. (2005). Positive mental health in individuals and populations. In F. Huppert, N. Baylis & B. Keverne (eds), The science of well-being (pp. 255–262). European Psychologist, 3.Google Scholar
  35. Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lakatos, I. (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Lucas, R. E., & Baird, B. M. (2004). Extraversion and emotional reactivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 473–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Lykken, D. (1999). Happiness: What studies on twins show us about nature, nurture and the happiness set-point. New York: Golden Books.Google Scholar
  42. Lykken, D. (2000). Happiness: The nature and nurture of joy and contentment. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7, 186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory. Social Indicators Research, 16, 347–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nickerson, C., Schwarz, N., Diener, E., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Zeroing in on the dark side of the American dream: A closer look at the negative consequences of the goal for financial success. Psychogical Science, 14, 531–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peterson, C. (1999). Personal control and well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 288–301). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalised expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, Whole No. 609.Google Scholar
  51. Sanders, M. R. (1996). Every parent: A positive approach to children’s behaviour. Sydney: Addison- Wesley.Google Scholar
  52. Scitovsky, T. (1976). The Joyless Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness :Using the new positive psychology to realise your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Veenhoven, R. (1993). Happiness in nations, subjective appreciation of life in 56 nations, 1946–92. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007). Enhancing the power of the German socio-economic panel study (SOEP)—Evolution, scope and enhancements. Schmoeller’s Jahrbuch, 127, 139–169.Google Scholar
  59. Watson, N. & Wooden, M. (2004). Assessing the quality of the HILDA Survey Wave 2 Data. HILDA Technical Paper, 5/04.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Wessman, A. E., & Ricks, D. F. (1966). Mood and personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  62. 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, DC: APA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, Faculty of Economics and CommerceUniversity of MelbourneGrattan St., ParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.German Institute for Economic Research (DIW)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations