Experiences Beat Possessions: Why Materialism Causes Unhappiness
Materialism
is a dirty word. It also gets a bad rap in psychology. Studies
consistently show that people who agree with statements like "You will
buy things just because you want them," tend to be:
- Less satisfied with life,
- Less happy,
- More likely to be depressed,
- More likely to be paranoid,
- More likely to be narcissistic.
Not a pretty picture, right? But, just like studies examining the connection between success and happiness, many of the findings are correlational. As a result we can't say for sure that materialism causes all these things, only that they're associated. So, for better evidence, cue the experiment.
Experiential versus material purchases
Leaf
Van Boven from the University of Colorado and Thomas Gilovich from
Cornell University carried out an intriguing experiment that gets at
this question of whether materialism results in less happiness (Van
Boven & Gilovich, 2003).
They randomly divided students into two groups and gave each group slightly different instructions:
- This group was asked to write a description of a material purchase that had made them happy. Material purchases include things like clothing, gadgets, computers and so on. This could be either something they had bought themselves or that had been bought for them.
- The task this group had was only slightly different. They were asked to write a description of an experiential purchase that had given them pleasure. Examples of experiential purchases are meals out, admission tickets to concerts and travel.
To see how they were feeling in the moment, participants were given surreptitious measures both before and after writing these short descriptions. Then, after about a week, the same participants were given back their own descriptions of their purchases and asked to reflect on it. Again, they were asked to report on their feelings in the moment.
Comparing these two groups provided a way of comparing how participants felt about two different types of purchases. The results showed that participants felt better when they were contemplating their experiential purchases than their material purchases.
Thinking about experience
As a
result of this experiment, Van Boven & Gilovich predicted that
people spend more time overall contemplating their experiential rather
than material purchases. To test this out they asked participants to
think about experiential and material purchases they were particularly
happy with. Then they were asked which they thought about more often.
The results clearly showed it was the experiential purchases people
thought about more often (83%).
Why do experiences fare better than possessions?
It
seems, then, that at some level we understand that our experiential
purchases give us more pleasure than our material purchases. But why is
that? Van Boven (2005) suggests three reasons:
1. Experiences improve with time (possessions don't).
The
reason why experiences improve with time may be because it is possible
to think about experiences in a more abstract manner than possessions.
For example if you think back to a fantastic summer from your youth,
you might easily remember an abstract sense of warm sunshine and
exuberance, but you're less likely to remember exactly what you did
day-by-day. On a moment-by-moment basis you might have been quite
bored, although you'll tend not to remember that.
Material possessions are harder to think about in an abstract sense. The car you bought is still a car, that great new jacket you picked up cheap is still just a jacket. It's more likely the experience of that summer has taken on a symbolic meaning that can live longer in your memory than a possession.
2. Experiences are resistant to unfavourable comparisons
It's
well established that social comparisons can have a huge effect on how
we view what might seem like positive events. One striking example is
the finding that people prefer to earn $50,000 a year while everyone
else earns $25,000, instead of earning $100,000 themselves and having
other people earn $200,000 (Solnick & Hemenway, 1998).
In other words it's not about how much we earn, it's about how much we earn in comparison to other people. It's the social comparison, then, not the actual amount of money, that affects how we feel about our earnings.
A similar effect is seen for possessions. When there's so many flatscreen HD TVs to choose from, it's easy to make unfavourable comparisons between our choice and the others available (check out Barry Schwartz on why too much choice is bad for us).
Experience, however, seems to be more resistant to these sorts of unfavourable comparisons. To explain this phenomenon, Van Boven puts forward the idea that it is because of the unique nature of experience. It's more difficult to make an unfavourable comparison when there is nothing directly comparable. After all, each of our youthful summers is different (even if only a little).
I also think it's hard to really compare our own experiences with those of other people. Comparing possessions, however, is generally easy.
3. Experiences have more social value
There
are two reasons experiences have more social value than possessions.
First, experiences tend to encourage social relationships and increased
social relationships are good for our happiness. Second, it is more
socially acceptable to discuss our experiences with others. People who
bang on about their possessions are considered much less likeable than
those who talk about their holiday adventures.
Limitations
Of
course, it has to be acknowledged that this type of research is at an
early stage. Van Boven points to a couple of potential problems yet to
be investigated:
- The experiments examined here looked at short-term emotions - will these short-term emotions add up to long-term happiness?
- Highly materialistic people might actually get more pleasure out of material purchases than experiences.
Materialist dilemmas
Despite these limitations, it seems that along with experimental evidence, there are also some good psychological reasons why experiences are more likely to make us happy than material possessions. On top of this, at some level we do seem to understand that experiences probably beat possessions in terms of happiness.
Set against this is the fact that we clearly live in a society awash with materialism, where objects are valued way beyond their possible contribution to our happiness. So how can this conflict possibly be resolved?
One answer to this question is that while we're likely to think that other people are materialist, we defend our own purchases as necessary and at worst, indulgent. After all, materialism is a dirty word. A dirty word that's on everyone's minds.
Being Happy: Enjoyable Activities Beat Improved Life Circumstances
One prediction from this theory is that engaging in new activities should increase our happiness more than an improvement in our circumstances. This is exactly what Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2006) tested in three related studies.
New activities vs. new circumstances
Two
different signs were put up around a university campus asking for
participants. One asked for participants who had recently seen an
improvement in their circumstances while another asked for those who
had recently taken up a new activity.
The study also tested how much these changes had been affected by hedonic adaptation (see sustainable happiness post) and variety. This was to make the comparison fair, so that both groups had not yet adapted to their new circumstances or activity and it was still providing variety - both factors thought important in sustainable happiness.
The results showed that those who had recently engaged in a new activity felt happier than those whose circumstances had improved. This provides some preliminary evidence but data collected over a period of time (longitudinal) is more convincing, so that is what Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2006) did in their second study.
Here they recruited participants in the same way but this time measured their happiness at three time-points. The results again supported the theory with the effects of improved circumstances increasing happiness, but the boost from a new activity being more lasting. Finally a third study along the same lines also found similar results.
The power of randomisation
A
problem with both these studies is that participants in both groups
were self-selected. This creates problems for the interpretation of the
results. For example, perhaps the type of people who take up new
activities are also prone to stay happier for longer periods. If that
is the case the results aren't really showing the benefits of
activities over circumstances.
This is exactly why experiments using random allocation to groups are so useful for psychologists. Once people have been randomly allocated to groups, the counter-argument about self-selection is ruled out.
Sheldon and Lyubomirsky are, therefore, currently carrying out a study with random allocation which will soon be published (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2007). Early indications bode well for their theory as the results support their previous studies. So, it looks like their previous results are not the result of self-selection.
Activities win
These
studies emphasise that new, enjoyable activities have more potential
for making us happy than improvements in our circumstances. Indeed
activities may have as much as four times more power to make us happy.
In the next post I'll be looking at which specific activities have received empirical support for increasing happiness.
]]>