The Psychology of Hedonic Adaptation — Why the Glow Always Fades
By the numbers
Figures come from the studies cited at the end of this page. Numbers describe group averages and study samples, not rules about individuals.
The evidence
What the research actually shows
The idea traces to Brickman and Campbell (1971), who coined the metaphor of the hedonic treadmill: as circumstances improve, expectations and desires rise in step, so people keep running yet stay roughly in the same emotional place. Gains that feel life-changing at first tend to be absorbed into a new normal, and the emotional lift fades even when the improvement remains.
The most famous test came from Brickman, Coates and Janoff-Bulman (1978), who compared major lottery winners with people who had become paraplegic after accidents. Contrary to intuition, the differences in reported happiness were smaller and more temporary than expected: winners were not dramatically happier in everyday life, and accident survivors, while affected, adapted more than outsiders assumed. The study is small and has been refined by later work, but it launched the modern understanding that people adjust to both fortune and misfortune to a striking degree.
Later research, notably by Sonja Lyubomirsky and colleagues, mapped how adaptation works and how to counter it. Her hedonic-adaptation-prevention model highlights that novelty and variety keep positive experiences fresh, while appreciation and gratitude interrupt the drift toward taking good things for granted. Importantly, adaptation is not total — longitudinal studies (for example on the lasting impact of unemployment or disability) show some life events shift well-being more durably than the pure treadmill would predict.
The mechanism
Why this happens
Part of the mechanism is perceptual. Our emotional systems respond to change and contrast, not to steady states — a warm room stops feeling warm once you have been in it a while. A new car, home, or salary is a change at first and then becomes the backdrop, so the very thing that thrilled us fades into the unnoticed baseline of daily life. Adaptation is, in a sense, the price of a nervous system tuned to detect what is new.
Rising aspirations do the rest. As Brickman and Campbell argued, each improvement resets our expectations upward, so yesterday's luxury becomes today's minimum. This 'aspiration treadmill' means satisfaction is partly relative to what we have grown used to, not just to what we objectively have. It also explains why comparison is so corrosive: measuring ourselves against a moving reference point keeps the finish line receding.
Adaptation has real evolutionary logic. A system that let good news thrill us forever would leave us satisfied and unmotivated, while one that let bad news crush us permanently would be paralyzing. Returning toward baseline keeps us responsive to the next opportunity and resilient after setbacks. The downside is that it also quietly steals the joy from things we worked hard to get — which is why slowing adaptation, rather than fighting it, is the realistic goal.
In practice
What this looks like in real life
A long-wanted purchase — a phone, a car, a home upgrade — delivers a burst of pleasure that, for many people, fades within weeks or months as it becomes ordinary. The object has not changed; the novelty has worn off, and attention has moved on to the next want. This is the treadmill in miniature, and recognizing it can take some of the sting out of the disappointment that follows big purchases.
The same pattern shows up with milestones. A promotion, a move to a nicer place, or reaching a savings goal often brings less lasting happiness than anticipated, because expectations rise to meet the new circumstance. People frequently report the anticipation and the first days as the sweetest part, with the steady state that follows feeling surprisingly normal.
Relationships are not immune. The early thrill of a new partnership — the honeymoon glow — tends to settle as the extraordinary becomes familiar. This is normal adaptation, not necessarily a sign of fading love, and couples who deliberately introduce novelty, mark occasions, and actively appreciate each other tend to keep more warmth alive against the pull of the everyday.
As circumstances improve, expectations rise in step, so yesterday's luxury becomes today's minimum.
Myth vs. evidence
What most people get wrong about this
The biggest error is what researchers call miswanting: overestimating how much and how long a future gain will make us happy. Because we imagine the peak moment and forget that we will adapt, we chase purchases, promotions, and milestones expecting a lasting lift that the treadmill quietly erases. Understanding adaptation does not mean stop wanting things — it means holding realistic expectations about how durable the glow will be.
A second misconception is that adaptation is complete and inevitable for everything, so nothing really moves the needle. That is too strong. Some circumstances — chronic pain, prolonged unemployment, loneliness, a supportive marriage — shift well-being more durably than the pure treadmill model predicts. Adaptation is powerful but partial, which is exactly why how we spend and structure our lives still matters for lasting happiness.
Why it matters
What this means for relationships
Because adaptation dulls the familiar, the practical antidotes are variety and appreciation. Research on couples suggests that novel, shared experiences reignite positive feeling more reliably than repeating the same comfortable routine, and that deliberately noticing and voicing what you value in a partner slows the drift toward taking them for granted. Spacing out treats, changing things up, and marking occasions all help keep good things from fading into the background.
It also reframes spending and life choices. Since experiences tend to resist adaptation better than possessions — they can be anticipated, shared, and remembered — steering time and money toward experiences over things is one evidence-informed way to get more lasting well-being per unit of effort. And because the anticipation and the savoring often outlast the acquisition itself, stretching out and paying attention to good moments generally beats rushing to the next one.
Working with adaptation, not against it
A side-by-side contrast to make the distinction concrete — patterns and tendencies, not rigid rules.
| Aspect | Speeds the fade | Slows the fade |
|---|---|---|
| Focus of spending | Accumulating more possessions | Investing in experiences |
| Pacing | Constant, back-to-back treats | Spacing out and varying pleasures |
| Attention | Rushing to the next want | Savoring and appreciating what you have |
| Reference point | Comparing against a rising bar | Noticing gains against where you started |
Where it varies
The nuance
Adaptation is a robust and well-replicated phenomenon, but its strength varies by event and by person. Genetics, temperament, and what psychologists call a happiness set point account for a meaningful share of baseline well-being, so people return toward different set points, not a single universal level. And some events — particularly negative ones like disability, widowhood, or long-term unemployment — can shift well-being for years, showing that the treadmill has real limits.
It is also worth avoiding a fatalistic reading. That we adapt does not mean our choices are pointless; it means the returns come less from single big acquisitions and more from how we structure attention over time. Deliberate savoring, gratitude, novelty, and investing in relationships and experiences all slow adaptation in ways research supports. The honest summary is that the glow fading is normal and universal — and largely, though not fully, within our influence.
Key takeaways
- Hedonic adaptation pulls us back toward a personal baseline after both good and bad changes.
- The lottery-winner study helped show we adapt to fortune and misfortune more than we expect.
- The thrill fades because our systems respond to change and because expectations rise with each gain.
- Adaptation is powerful but partial — some circumstances shift well-being far more durably than the treadmill predicts.
- Variety, savoring, gratitude, and choosing experiences over possessions can meaningfully slow the fade.
Questions people ask about this
What is hedonic adaptation?
It is the tendency to return toward a personal baseline of well-being after both positive and negative changes. Brickman and Campbell (1971) called it the hedonic treadmill: as circumstances improve, expectations rise in step, so the emotional lift from gains tends to fade over time.
Did the lottery-winner study really find winners weren't happier?
Roughly, yes. Brickman, Coates and Janoff-Bulman (1978) found major lottery winners were not dramatically happier in everyday life than comparison groups, and accident survivors adapted more than outsiders expected. The study is small and later work has refined it, but it launched the modern understanding of adaptation.
Why does the excitement of new things wear off so fast?
Because our emotional systems respond to change and contrast rather than steady states, and because our expectations rise to meet each improvement. A new purchase is a change at first and then becomes the unnoticed backdrop, so the thrill fades even though the object remains.
Can you slow down hedonic adaptation?
Research suggests you can slow, though not stop, it. Lyubomirsky's work points to variety and novelty keeping experiences fresh, and to appreciation and savoring interrupting the drift toward taking good things for granted. Spacing out treats and actively noticing them tends to help.
Does adaptation apply to relationships too?
Often, yes. The early thrill of a relationship tends to settle as the extraordinary becomes familiar, which is normal rather than a sign of fading love. Deliberately introducing novelty and voicing appreciation appears to keep more warmth alive against the pull of routine.
If we adapt to everything, does anything make us lastingly happier?
Adaptation is powerful but partial. Some circumstances — supportive relationships, meaningful work, chronic hardship — shift well-being more durably than the treadmill predicts. Experiences tend to resist adaptation better than possessions, which is one reason they often yield more lasting well-being.
Research sources
These references point to the published research and established frameworks behind this page. They are provided for further reading; see our research methodology for how sources are selected.
- Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-Level Theory (pp. 287–305). New York: Academic Press.
- Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 917–927.
- Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The challenge of staying happier: Testing the Hedonic Adaptation Prevention model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 670–680.
- Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305–314.
- 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 Foundation.
Last reviewed by the Men Women Psychology editorial team.
Written and reviewed by the Men Women Psychology Editorial Team against our editorial standards. This article is educational and is not a substitute for professional advice.