The Hedonic Treadmill
You finally win the lottery. How much happier will you be in the long run?
You finally are able to marry that desirable partner you always wanted. How much happier will you be long term?
Tragically, a teenage girl loses a limb in an automobile accident. How much unhappier will she be in the long run?
A young man, convinced he should have been a woman, saves up his money to get a “sex change” operation. How much happier will he be in the long run if he finally gets his way?
There are a numerous studies in social sciences showing that people experience hedonic adaptation. We will denominate this theory “specific habituation”: people adapt to particular life events, such as an increase in income, losing a job or getting married.
For instance, Brickman et al. (1978) show that state lottery winners reported only slightly higher levels of life satisfaction than a control group. Oswald et al. (2008) provide longitudinal evidence that people who become disabled exhibit a 30% to 50% recovery in mental well-being. Tyc (1992) found no difference in quality of life between young patients who had lost limbs to cancer compared with those who had not. In a study of prisoners, Wormith (1984) observed significant improvement in deviance, attitude, and personality measures. Some health studies involve burn victims (Patterson et al., 1993) and hemodialysis patients (Riis et al., 2005).
A few economists have shown interest in the measurement of affective habituation. In one of the first studies, Di Tella et al. (2007) used panel data on life satisfaction and concluded that 65% of the initial effect of an increase in income is lost over the ensuing four years. Clark et al. (2008) use panel data to find evidence of adaptation to life events such as unemployment, layoffs, marriage, and divorce. For more details about empirical and experimental evidence see Frederick et al. (1999).
After the study’s general summary of the literature, the authors present their theory in mathematical terms. I must confess that I did not understand all that much of their mathematical argument. But the summary of the literature on the effects of specific events on happiness is the critical aspect of the article for the purposes of our discussion.
It seems that people have a general level of happiness around which they constantly hover. The events of their lives can change this level of happiness. Temporarily. Then it’s back to their baseline level.
Incidentally, I have previously asked the question what tangible benefit to society will be derived from redefining marriage to include same sex couples. The responses to my question were that I was a wicked, wicked man for having asked demanded as answers to the question tangible benefits such as an improved GDP or the like. Nobody could come up with an adequate response except to note the abstract benefits of such a change.
So, would gay people really be happier if they were allowed to marry?
So far as I could tell from my reading, they would experience no significant long term improvement in happiness (save, perhaps from the elimination of distortions caused by the Focusing Illusion).
So, we here at the Ruth Institute have pointed out several potential downsides of marriage redefinition. Now I ask a question: Where’s the up side? For anyone?
Loading ...
Well, the up side for my partner and I would include certain tangible benefits, including, but not limited to: being able to file joint tax returns; not worrying about certain estate taxes if one was to predecease the other; being entitled to one another’s social security benefits instead of knowing that other couples receive that benefit if one dies before the other but we can’t; and being able to travel without wondering if there was an emergency and we were in a state that did not recognize our relationship (there was a relatively recent and tragic story about a couple traveling in Florida with their children, one had a medical emergency, ended up in the hospital and was dying alone in a hospital room because the hospital staff would not allow her partner and children to see her because they were not considered family–her partner wasn’t even allowed any information about her dying love, in spite of the fact that they had all of their legal documents with them–power of attorneys, domestic partnership papers, etc). These are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the benefits of marriage.
Then there are intangible benefits that are perhaps more difficult to describe, but are probably more important. My former boss waited until she was forty years old before she met and married a single father of two young children. She didn’t think that she would ever marry, and didn’t think very highly of the institution. But she finally met that person who was worth it to her, and she told me that on her first evening as a married woman, she just felt different. More secure, more at peace, content. Just like straight people, I want to marry the woman I love because I love her, because I want to share that love with my closest friends and family, to declare my commitment to her to the world, to further strengthen the bond that we share, and to stand before God and promise to always love and care for her for as long as I live. Don’t get me wrong; our inability to marry will not change my commitment to her, it will not cause me to leave her, and it will not stop me from doing everything in my power to keep our relationship vibrant and strong. But knowing that we are disallowed that spiritually symbolic, powerful, and logical next step in our relationship is painful and infuriating.
On a societal level, one of the benefits of same-sex marriage is to affirm a culture of monogamy, of lifelong love and commitment, of tradition and of a childhood to adulthood longing to be a part of a universal institution. Another is the fact that by encouraging adults to form lasting commitments with one another in which they share economic resources, there is a lesser likelihood that the state will be needed to support individuals in medical or other economic crises. Yet another is the reality of divorce, and the fact that the laws are inadequate to protect individuals involved in long-term relationships who are not married and end up splitting up, ESPECIALLY if there are children involved and one of the parents is not biologically related to that child.
Ari, tell me something. Did YOU experience an improvement in happiness when YOU married? Would YOU be as happy if you had been unable to do so? You really make this harder than it has to be. Just put yourself in the shoes of a gay or lesbian person and ask how you would like to be treated. It is really that simple. I know you are Jewish, and not Christian, but I do believe that it was a rather famous Jew who told people that they should love others as they love themselves.
Heidi asks:
Did YOU experience an improvement in happiness when YOU married? Would YOU be as happy if you had been unable to do so?
You see, Heidi, that’s a slippery question. There is absolutely no comparison.
You know that I’m a religious conservative. So, I believe that my marriage enabled me to do two things: have sex and have children. Both of those contribute to happiness (sex impacts it positively, and, according to the evidence, having children impacts it negatively. Hopefully, in the long run, the children will positively contribute to my happiness, but that remains to be seen).
Now, I doubt that there are many people who call themselves LGBT or whatever who would wait to have sex until they got married. So, there’s really no comparison.
I doubt any of the things you mentioned in that lengthy manifesto impact your happiness all that much without the distortions of the focusing illusion.
Nice try, though.
Great answer, Heidi. Arlemagne, the last time you asked what tangible benefit society would derive from gay marriage, I didn’t call you a wicked, wicked man or point solely to “abstract benefits of such a change”–though I think it’s a mistake to dismiss those abstract benefits. Whether my response was adequate or not to you I didn’t know, since you didn’t respond. I wrote:
“…that question is easy. Married people are healthier, more economically productive, and more financially stable than their single counterparts. They’re more likely to save money and plan for the future, less likely to use drugs or drink heavily, less likely to miss work or commit crimes. Obviously, they’re less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, too, and therefore less likely to contract or spread a sexually transmitted disease.
This is all intuitive, but it’s also well-documented. I could post links (dozens), but since you blog for the Ruth Institute I doubt you’ll disagree about the benefits of marriage, or have trouble finding corroborating info.
The benefits of marriage can be seen across racial and socioeconomic lines, and for both couples that have children and those that do not. And there is no reason to believe that these benefits would not also apply to gay couples.
The social good of these individual benefits ought to be obvious. In fact, there’s a perverse irony in the workings of those social conservative groups* that decry the social costs of “homosexual behavior” (associated with higher depression, promiscuity, STD infection, drug use) and, at the same time, oppose extending to gays an institution that reduces all of those things. (*For the record, I’m not suggesting that the Ruth Institute is one of those groups)”
In the discussion on that post, I pointed out that though the data on the effects of gay marriage is preliminary, what we do have does suggest that it offers exactly these sorts of benefits. World Health Organization data, for example, paints a pretty clear relationship between legalization of gay marriage and dropping syphilis rates among gay men. (Dee, Thomas S. “Forsaking All Others? The Effects of Same-Sex Partnership Laws on Risky Sex.” The Economic Journal, Vol. 118, No. 530 (2008): 1055-78.) I’d call that a very tangible benefit.
Fuerte,
I think predicting that the benefits that real marriage currently offers will have the same effect on a completely different coupling is not justified. Same sex relationships are completely different than male female relationships. The results, naturally, will differ.
The benefits of marriage are obvious and well known. And no one is stopping gay and lesbian people from marrying! But apparently the benefits of marriage to the partners and children pale in comparison to the importance of gender.
Hey, Ari, why don’t you interview some of the couples from the states where same-sex marriage is allowed now? I’m willing to bet that they could tell you about the benefits of marriage for them!
And are you suggesting that only people who wait until marriage to have sex can benefit from marriage? Are you suggesting that people who marry but do not have children do not benefit? And are you serious when you say that sex and children were the ONLY benefits to being married for you? Wow. I wonder if your wife knows that.
And how do YOU know that “[s]ame sex relationships are completely different than male female relationships?” Have you ever been in a same sex relationship? I’ve been in both a male-female relationship AND a same-sex relationship, and the only differences that I’ve noticed are the obvious ones (we have sex a bit differently and my current partner never leaves the toilet seat up, lol). Seriously, Ari. The differences are all in your head and are based on gender stereotypes. But even if there were demonstrable differences, that’s still no excuse to disallow marriage equality.
We want to marry for the same reasons that straight people do. We will experience the same benefits that straight people do. Just because you refuse to believe that doesn’t make it untrue! Have I ever told you how annoying it is for people to make unfounded assumptions based on stereotypes? Until you have been gay or bisexual, or you have been involved in a same-sex relationship, how can you know that our relationships are “completely different?” Just because we have similar body parts to one another means nothing more than just that. I really think you need to get out more and actually meet some same-sex couples (and their children). I think you’d learn very quickly that your stereotypes do not hold water.
Oh, and I’m sorry if you don’t like my “manifestos.” Some of us aren’t satisfied with the soundbite approach to important issues.
“The results, naturally, will differ.” It’s cool if you want to think that for now, Arlemagne, while the evidence is scant and preliminary. But when the data starts really starts rolling in on the effects of gay marriage, don’t forget that you were the one who, in Jonathan Rauch’s words, decided to bet against marriage.
H: Seriously, Ari. The differences are all in your head and are based on gender stereotypes.
Heidi, you will never be a father, a son, or a husband. These aren’t “stereotypes” they are facts of life. I’ll never be a daughter a wife a mother or have a period or experience menopause.
H: But even if there were demonstrable differences, that’s still no excuse to disallow marriage equality.
Separate just isn’t equal in this case. We could call it “equal”, if we wanted to (obviously we don’t), but it never would be.
Oh Marty, how I wish you could open your eyes and your heart to the power of love and to the fact that not everyone is meant to be clones of one another. God made us in such wonderful diversity. Why do you want everyone to be the same?
You’re right. Separate isn’t equal. That’s why civil unions don’t cut it. Marriage is equal. And marriage we will have, even if takes another lifetime to get it. The tide is in favor of my side of this struggle, not yours. Just ask the teenagers. They know discrimination when they see it. And they are passionate about equality.
Heidi, please explain to me the “diversity” found in a home with two moms and no dad?
PS: The “tide” is 31 to zip, in case you havent noticed. We The People arent buying what you’re selling here — good luck forcing it down our throats.
Lol teenagers. Yeah, I would have been on your side 20 years ago too. Funny how some people grow up, and others cling to their angst like a warm blanky.
Marty, silly, you assume that two moms are the same. My partner and I are not. Just like heterosexual couples, we each have certain characteristics, qualities and attributes that are different from one another. In fact, the ONLY similarity between us is our external physical body parts, and even then, we don’t really look the same! How odd to assume that a home with two moms would not have diversity!
Once upon a time, the numbers of states opposed to interracial marriage mirrored those numbers you’ve cited above. And we all know what happened to those numbers. You see, it doesn’t really matter what the majority believe about this subject, because this country is not run according to the tyranny of the majority when it comes to fundamental rights and to equal protection under the law. The promises of the Constitution are intended to protect the individual against the majority. But anyway, as the latest polls show, the majority is moving closer and closer to my side. Did you read the latest Gallup poll numbers regarding straight men and their acceptance of homosexuality? Very enlightening.
As for the difference between teenagers and adults, you could learn a lot from teenagers. You see, they are more pure in their values and in their sense of injustice than many adults are. It’s only when they grow up, get comfortable, lazy and apathetic that they lose that precious passion. Hence the hippie to yuppie phenomenon. Once upon a time, those kids wanted to change the world. Now, they just want to buy a new Lexus. Sad.