Normal Is a Moving Target

A quiet change often follows a major improvement. The new apartment that first felt spacious becomes simply home. A salary increase that briefly produced relief becomes the amount required to keep life running. Even a gentle pleasure—a favorite meal, a familiar song, an evening without demands—can lose some of its brightness when it becomes routine. The circumstances may remain objectively better, yet the experience of them changes.

Adaptation-level theory offers a precise way to understand this movement. Through shifting adaptation levels, experience changes not only our circumstances but also the standard against which later circumstances are judged. What once felt exceptional can become ordinary; what once felt adequate can begin to feel insufficient. This does not mean that people are ungrateful or incapable of lasting well-being. It means that psychological evaluation is relational: the present is interpreted against a background built from previous stimulation, expectations, and comparison standards (Helson, 1948, 1964).

What Is an Adaptation Level?

Harry Helson described judgment as organized around an adaptation level: a functional zero or neutral point established by the total situation. We do not evaluate an experience in isolation. Our judgment is also shaped by the surrounding context and by what we have encountered before. Recent, frequent, prolonged, or especially noticeable experiences may have the greatest influence on what currently feels normal (Helson, 1964).

Imagine entering a dim room after standing in bright sunlight. The room initially appears unusually dark. After time inside, the visual system recalibrates and distinctions within the room become easier to see. The room has not brightened; the operative frame has changed. Adaptation-level theory extends this relational logic beyond sensory experience to judgments of size, price, reward, success, and satisfaction. Helson’s exact weighted-average formulation did not survive every experimental test, but the broader claim—that judgments depend on context and an adjustable reference point—proved durable (Parducci et al., 1960; Sarris, 1967).

An adaptation level is therefore not necessarily a consciously chosen expectation. It is the psychologically operative standard that makes a stimulus register as above, below, or near normal. Because experience continually updates the field from which that standard is formed, normal is less like a fixed line and more like a moving center of gravity.

How Shifting Adaptation Levels Develop

A change is often noticed first through contrast. A warmer room feels especially warm after cold air; an unexpected bonus feels large beside an ordinary paycheck. Repeated exposure then begins to incorporate the new condition into the background. The exceptional event contributes to a revised norm, and later encounters are judged against that norm rather than the earlier one. The result is recalibration: the stimulus can still be detected and differentiated, but its meaning on the evaluative scale changes (Helson, 1964).

Range and frequency matter. We judge something partly by its position within the full range of our experience and partly by how many experiences fall above or below it. Because these two standards can differ, the same stimulus may appear moderate by one comparison and unusually high or low by another (Parducci, 1965). This helps explain why an identical price can look modest in one assortment and excessive in another, or why a respectable performance can feel disappointing inside an unusually high-performing group.

A shifted baseline is also shaped by attention and explanation. Wilson and Gilbert proposed that affective adaptation often proceeds as people attend to an event, react to it, and then explain it. Once an event becomes understood and unsurprising, it commands less attention and produces a weaker affective response (Wilson & Gilbert, 2008). Repetition alone is not the entire story; predictability, interpretation, and diminished attention can help transform novelty into normality.

What Shapes the New Baseline?

Recent and repeated experiences usually receive substantial weight, but the baseline is not a simple arithmetic average. Extreme anchors, the endpoints of a range, and the frequency distribution of encountered values can influence judgment. In consumer settings, Janiszewski and Lichtenstein showed that price evaluations depend both on a reference price and on the range created by contextual prices. Retail environments do more than display options; they help construct the scale on which each option is judged (Janiszewski & Lichtenstein, 1999).

Not every experience enters the same psychological average. Its influence depends partly on whether it is treated as relevant to the judgment being made. A luxury restaurant may change what feels expensive when another restaurant is evaluated, for example, without substantially altering what feels expensive at a grocery store. Experiences shape a shared baseline most strongly when they are understood as belonging to the same comparison category (Adamson, 1971; Brown & Reich, 1971).

Other people also become part of the background. Mussweiler’s selective-accessibility model explains how social comparison can yield assimilation when attention centers on similarities or contrast when it centers on differences. A peer group, workplace, neighborhood, or online feed can silently revise what counts as ordinary success. The adaptation level is therefore personal but not purely private; social environments help supply its anchors (Mussweiler, 2003).

Expectation adds another layer. Classical conditioning can establish cues that forecast an outcome, while explicit beliefs and aspirations can establish what outcome seems due. When the forecast is repeatedly confirmed, surprise diminishes. When an outcome falls below the expected range, disappointment may appear even if the outcome remains objectively favorable. Shifting adaptation levels are thus entwined with learning, but they specifically describe the evaluative standard that learning helps construct (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2012).

How Do Psychologists Identify a Shifting Adaptation Level?

Researchers look for changes in how people rate the same stimulus after the surrounding context has been altered. If the rating changes when researchers adjust the typical value, the extremes, the order of presentation, or the frequency of comparison items, it suggests that the person’s reference point has shifted (Helson, 1964; Parducci et al., 1960; Parducci, 1965).

A changed rating does not always reveal exactly what has changed psychologically. Context may alter how a person experiences a stimulus, but it may also alter the language or response categories used to describe it. Early adaptation-level researchers debated whether contextual effects occurred primarily in perception or in judgment. Studies using communication and referential tasks suggested that the effect could not always be dismissed as a simple rating-scale artifact, although the boundary between experiencing something differently and describing it differently remains difficult to establish (Helson, 1971; Manis, 1971).

Helson proposed that the stimulus being judged, its surrounding context, and the lingering influence of prior experience combine to form a weighted reference level. Later experiments tested whether the mean, midpoint, or median best predicted contextual shifts. Parducci and colleagues found results that could not be explained by a simple average alone, while Sarris directly challenged parts of Helson’s weighted-average formulation. Parducci’s range-frequency model subsequently proposed that category judgments reflect both position within the experienced range and rank within the frequency distribution (Parducci et al., 1960; Parducci, 1965; Sarris, 1967).

These disagreements strengthen rather than weaken the article’s central point. They show how psychologists distinguish a useful general principle from one particular mathematical model. Context-dependent judgment is well supported; the exact computation of the reference point depends on the task and cannot be assumed in advance. In reward research, investigators use a related logic by holding an outcome constant while changing the alternative rewards or preceding reinforcement conditions. A resulting change in performance reveals relative valuation rather than a change in the physical outcome itself (Webber et al., 2015).

A Shifted Baseline Is Not the Same as Becoming Numb

Several neighboring concepts describe reduced response, but they should not be collapsed. Habituation is a decline in responding after repeated stimulation. Desensitization generally refers to diminished emotional or physiological responsiveness. Hedonic adaptation describes the reduction of affective impact over time. A shifting adaptation level is narrower: the reference point changes, so the relative meaning of a stimulus changes. Sensitivity may remain. A person may still notice differences among salaries, meals, or levels of praise while evaluating the entire range from a new center (Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999; Galak & Redden, 2018).

Frederick and Loewenstein distinguished processes that alter the perceived intensity of an experience from processes that alter its hedonic interpretation. Galak and Redden likewise reviewed multiple pathways of hedonic decline, including physiological feedback, perceptual change, and self-reflective processes. A moving baseline is one mechanism within this larger family, not a universal explanation for every fading response (Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999; Galak & Redden, 2018).

The happiness set point idea is broader still. It concerns characteristic levels of subjective well-being and the extent to which people return toward them after events. Adaptation-level theory instead focuses on the reference standard involved in a particular judgment. A person’s standards for income, comfort, or social approval can shift without every aspect of well-being returning to a single fixed point (Diener et al., 2006).

How Adaptation Levels Interact With Conditioning

Adaptation-level theory shares important territory with classical and operant conditioning. All three emphasize that present reactions are organized by learning history and context. Yet they answer different questions. Classical conditioning asks how one event comes to predict another. Operant conditioning asks how consequences alter the future probability of behavior. Adaptation-level theory asks how accumulated context establishes the reference point from which an event or consequence is evaluated (Helson, 1964; Rescorla & Wagner, 1972; Skinner, 1953).

Classical Conditioning: What Does This Cue Predict?

In classical conditioning, a formerly neutral cue can acquire significance by predicting a biologically or psychologically important event. Contemporary associative models emphasize that learning depends partly on discrepancy between what is expected and what occurs: a surprising outcome produces more learning than one already well predicted (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). This resembles adaptation-level theory’s concern with discrepancy, but the resemblance should not erase the distinction. Prediction error changes what we expect one event to signal about another. A discrepancy from an adaptation level tells us whether an experience feels better, worse, stronger, or weaker than what has become normal.

A notification tone may acquire positive emotional value because it repeatedly precedes welcome social contact. Classical conditioning helps explain why the tone becomes meaningful. If messages become constant, however, the level of social stimulation that feels normal may rise. The same tone may then produce less pleasure, even though it remains a reliable predictor. The learned cue has not necessarily disappeared; its hedonic impact is being judged against a different baseline.

Operant Conditioning: What Follows This Behavior?

Operant conditioning concerns the relation between behavior and its consequences. A reinforcing consequence increases the future probability of the behavior it follows. Adaptation levels complicate the everyday assumption that a reward has a fixed psychological value. Helson argued that reinforcement effects depend on the relation between an outcome and prevailing stimulation levels, not merely on the nominal presence of reward or punishment. Adamson’s adaptation-level analysis of incentive contrast similarly treated behavior as responsive to discrepancies from an established norm (Adamson, 1971; Helson, 1964; Skinner, 1953).

Consider praise at work. If recognition is rare, sincere praise may stand well above the prevailing level and strongly reinforce effort. If praise becomes automatic and indiscriminate, the same words may move toward the expected baseline and lose some reinforcing force. Conversely, a modest reward can feel unusually valuable after scarcity. Operant conditioning explains how consequences strengthen or weaken action; adaptation-level theory helps explain why the experienced value of those consequences changes across histories and contexts.

Behavioral and Incentive Contrast: Connecting Baselines and Reinforcement

Behavioral contrast provides the clearest bridge. A reward does not influence behavior only through its current size or frequency. Its effect also depends on what came before or what other rewards are available. A better-than-usual reward can seem especially motivating, while a worse-than-usual reward can seem especially disappointing. Webber and colleagues held reward outcomes constant while changing the reward context in a chain of operant responses. They found positive contrast when reward differences were largest, while some other reward combinations increased responding more broadly rather than producing a simple contrast effect. Relative reward effects were therefore dynamic and more diverse than a simple upshift-downshift rule (Webber et al., 2015).

The Webber study used ten male rats and food rewards, so it should not be treated as direct evidence about human happiness. Its value here is methodological and conceptual: identical outcomes organized behavior differently when embedded among different alternatives. This contemporary result extends the historical bridge Adamson drew between incentive contrast and adaptation-level theory (Adamson, 1971; Webber et al., 2015).

A Three-Layer Account of Learning and Evaluation

The relationship can be summarized as a Psychology Fanatic synthesis rather than a single established theory. Classical conditioning asks, What does this cue predict? It changes the predictive significance of an event. Adaptation-level processes ask, How does this compare with normal? They change the evaluative reference point. Operant conditioning asks, What follows this action? It changes the future probability of behavior through its consequences.

These layers can separate. A notification may continue to predict social contact; constant contact may raise the expected stimulation level and reduce the notification’s pleasure; checking may nevertheless persist because messages occasionally deliver a socially rewarding outcome. Diminished enjoyment is therefore not necessarily extinction of a learned association or cessation of reinforced behavior.

From Sensory Judgment to Happiness and Well-Being

The movement from sensory judgment to affect is intuitive but requires care. In a small temperature-judgment experiment with eight male undergraduates, Haber found that slight discrepancies from an established adaptation level were preferred to either zero discrepancy or larger discrepancies. Brickman and Campbell later extended adaptation-level theory to the hedonic treadmill: improving conditions can lose some experiential impact as they become part of the standard against which later conditions are judged (Brickman & Campbell, 1971; Haber, 1958).

The movement from psychophysical judgments to happiness is an extension, not a demonstration that every domain uses an identical mechanism. Sensory experiments can tightly control stimulus distributions; life satisfaction is constructed from broader memories, aspirations, social comparisons, and meanings. The evidence warrants a family resemblance around relative evaluation, not a claim that income, warmth, praise, and grief are psychologically interchangeable.

This extension does not imply that objective improvements are meaningless. Safer housing, adequate income, physical health, and supportive relationships retain practical value even when their novelty fades. Adaptation changes experience; it does not erase material conditions. It also does not proceed uniformly. People may adapt in one domain but not another, or show different trajectories in positive affect, negative affect, and cognitive life satisfaction.

The crucial psychological point is that pleasure and satisfaction are not read directly from circumstances. They are constructed partly through comparison with what came before, what was expected, and what is available as a reference. That is why preserving gains and continuing to feel their initial contrast are different accomplishments.

Where Shifting Baselines Appear

Prices, Income, Status, and Relative Judgment

Price perception offers a clean example. A $60 item may seem expensive beside $30 alternatives and reasonable beside $120 alternatives. Income provides a more socially consequential case. Boyce and colleagues found that income rank predicted life satisfaction better than absolute income in their analyses, suggesting that relative position matters. Di Tella and colleagues reported substantial adaptation to income over time but less adaptation to status, underscoring that money and social position do not operate identically (Boyce et al., 2010; Di Tella et al., 2010).

Consumption and Everyday Pleasure

Daily consumption provides smaller illustrations. The first use of a new device may feel delightful, but its conveniences soon become expected. Frequent high-intensity entertainment can alter the range against which quieter activities are evaluated. This normalization can make a benefit less visible even while the objective benefit remains (Galak & Redden, 2018).

Galak and Redden’s review shows why this decline should not automatically be attributed to one mechanism. Physiological feedback, perceptual changes, and self-reflective processes can all contribute. More concentrated consumption generally accelerates hedonic decline, whereas breaks and appropriately perceived variety can slow it under some conditions. The relevant question is not simply whether pleasure faded, but what changed in the organism, the perceptual scale, attention, or interpretation (Galak & Redden, 2018).

Relationships and Life Events

Life events reveal the limits of any single adaptation story. Luhmann and colleagues synthesized longitudinal evidence from 188 publications, 313 samples, and 65,911 participants. The four family events—marriage, divorce, bereavement, and childbirth—and four work events—unemployment, reemployment, retirement, and relocation or migration—showed different patterns across the affective and cognitive components of subjective well-being. There was no single, universal adaptation trajectory (Luhmann et al., 2012).

Dependable care in a relationship can become a quiet background condition rather than a recurring surprise. That normalization may reflect security, but it can also make the contribution less visible. Conversely, chronic disruption can become familiar without becoming harmless. Relationship examples should therefore illustrate moving standards without implying that all relational changes follow a hedonic treadmill.

Communication and Shared Meaning

Moving baselines also affect communication. Words such as large, successful, generous, and severe do not carry completely fixed psychological values. Their meaning partly reflects the range of examples a speaker or listener has recently encountered. Misunderstanding can therefore arise when two people use the same descriptive language while relying on different reference points. What one person calls an adequate salary, serious problem, or meaningful improvement may register very differently for someone whose comparison history is different (Manis, 1971).

The Functions and Costs of a Moving Baseline

Why Recalibration Can Be Adaptive

A nervous system that treated every familiar condition as permanently novel would be overwhelmed. Recalibration can reduce attention to what has become predictable and preserve sensitivity to change. It can help people discriminate among current options and function inside altered environments. The worker who has mastered a difficult task can redirect attention toward subtler errors; the person who has moved from instability to safety can eventually build routines rather than continually experiencing safety as an astonishing exception (Galak & Redden, 2018; Wilson & Gilbert, 2008).

Within the three-layer synthesis described above, conditioning and adaptation contribute differently to this economy of attention. Predictive cues help the organism prepare for what is likely to happen. Operant consequences select actions that work in a setting. Adaptation levels organize the relative significance of outcomes within that setting. Together they make behavior sensitive not only to events, but also to regularities and changes in those events.

This is why the fading of intensity is not always loss. Sometimes it is the felt signature of successful accommodation. A good condition can become ordinary because it has become dependable. The challenge is not to keep every benefit emotionally dazzling, but to remain capable of recognizing what the revised baseline now conceals.

When a Moving Baseline Creates Problems

The same mechanism can make progress difficult to see. Improvements lose contrast, aspirations rise, and yesterday’s achievement becomes today’s minimum requirement. When the comparison field keeps moving upward, satisfaction can remain elusive even while circumstances improve (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2012).

A moving baseline can also normalize harmful conditions. Chronic disrespect, overwork, noise, danger, or coercion may begin to feel familiar. Familiarity should not be confused with safety or acceptability. Adaptation describes a psychological change; it does not provide a moral defense of the conditions to which someone has adapted. Structural harm remains harm even when the nervous system learns to endure it.

Careless escalation can change the comparison standard applied to later rewards. If each accomplishment is followed by a larger reward, yesterday’s reward may lose relative value even though its objective amount is unchanged. In organizations, families, or classrooms, the ethical lesson is not to manipulate another person’s baseline, but to recognize that consequences are experienced relationally (Adamson, 1971; Webber et al., 2015).

Three Psychological Meanings of Normal

The word normal can hide three different judgments. Familiar normal describes what a person has become accustomed to. Statistical normal describes what is common in a group or environment. Evaluative normal describes what is safe, healthy, fair, or adequate. These standards sometimes overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

Chronic overwork, coercion, or disrespect can become familiar without becoming healthy or morally acceptable. A rare condition can be beneficial, while a common condition can remain harmful. This three-part distinction is a clarifying framework offered here, not a validated psychological scale. It protects adaptation-level theory from the mistaken conclusion that whatever feels ordinary must be acceptable.

Adaptation Is Partial, Uneven, and Sometimes Absent

A central contemporary conclusion is that people do not invariably return to a single neutral level. Diener, Lucas, and Scollon argued that set points can change, people have multiple components of well-being, and individuals differ in their reactions to events. Luhmann and colleagues likewise found event-specific and outcome-specific patterns. Some changes leave enduring effects; others show recovery; still others produce complicated trajectories rather than a smooth return (Diener et al., 2006; Luhmann et al., 2012).

Early researchers also proposed that people may maintain several partly separate adaptation levels. A standard learned in one setting may influence judgments in another when the person treats the settings as psychologically related, but it may remain compartmentalized when the settings are experienced as distinct. Brown and Reich explored whether individuals differ in their tendency to combine or separate these systems. Their proposal is historically useful, although it should not be treated as an established personality classification (Brown & Reich, 1971).

Conditioning also places limits on a simple baseline story. A conditioned cue may continue to elicit a learned response even after the broader environment improves. Behavior established under intermittent reinforcement can also be unusually resistant to extinction. These effects do not refute adaptation-level theory; they show that several learning and regulatory processes can operate at once. A person’s evaluative standard may shift while conditioned reactions and reinforced habits remain active (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972; Skinner, 1953).

For this reason, shifting adaptation levels should be used as a mechanism, not a total theory of personality, happiness, or psychopathology. Helson-inspired extensions into those domains are historically important, but broad clinical claims require evidence beyond the existence of a moving reference point.

Recognizing a Moving Baseline

A moving baseline becomes easier to notice when we ask comparative questions. What once felt new about this condition? Which prior experiences now supply the comparison? Has the objective condition changed, or mainly the standard used to evaluate it? Is a cue predicting a response, is a consequence reinforcing an action, or is the outcome simply being measured against a revised normal? These questions separate related processes without pretending that reflection can fully reverse them.

Awareness does not freeze adaptation. Research suggests that breaks, changes in pacing, perceived variety, and renewed attention can sometimes slow hedonic decline, although effects depend on the experience and the mechanism involved. More importantly, objective indicators can protect judgment when harmful or beneficial conditions have become psychologically ordinary. Budgets, health measures, workload limits, and explicit relationship standards provide information that felt normality alone cannot supply (Galak & Redden, 2018; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2012).

This distinction also matters when social programs are evaluated. A change in reported satisfaction may reflect both a change in living conditions and a change in the standard against which those conditions are judged. One implication is that subjective reports should be considered alongside objective measures of health, safety, opportunity, and material sufficiency (Brickman & Campbell, 1971).

Research on hedonic adaptation offers cautious clues rather than a universal reset procedure. Sheldon and Lyubomirsky proposed two routes by which gains may erode: positive emotions generated by a change can decline, and the change can raise aspirations for still more improvement. In a three-wave study of 481 students, continued appreciation and variety in change-related experiences moderated parts of these pathways and were associated with better maintenance of well-being gains (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2012).

The design was longitudinal and relied substantially on self-report, so it does not establish that gratitude or novelty will prevent adaptation for everyone. Galak and Redden’s broader review likewise indicates that variety, breaks, consumption rate, and reflective attention have effects that depend on the stimulus and mechanism involved. These findings support modest experiments with attention and pacing, not promises that a person can permanently preserve the intensity of every positive change (Galak & Redden, 2018).

Continued appreciation may help preserve attention to a positive change, but it should not be used to demand contentment with injustice or deprivation. The ethical use of adaptation-level theory is descriptive and clarifying: it helps explain why experience changes, while leaving room to judge whether the underlying condition is actually good, safe, and sufficient (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2012).

A Few Words From Psychology Fanatic

We live inside comparisons we rarely see. The meal is judged against other meals, the paycheck against other paychecks, the present self against remembered and imagined selves. With repetition, these comparisons settle into the background and begin to feel like reality itself.

Shifting adaptation levels remind us that feeling normal is not the same as being neutral, permanent, or objectively adequate. Classical conditioning may teach a cue what to predict. Operant conditioning may teach an action what consequences follow. Adaptation-level processes help determine how those predicted consequences feel relative to the life we have come to expect. Understanding the distinction gives us a more honest account of why improvement can fade, why loss can sting, and why familiar conditions—good or bad—can disappear from conscious view.

Associated Concepts

• Hedonic Treadmill: The tendency for the emotional impact of improved circumstances to fade as they become familiar and expectations adjust.
• Happiness Set Point: A proposed relatively stable level of happiness toward which well-being may gravitate after positive or negative events.
• Habituation: A decline in responding after repeated exposure to a stimulus; unlike a shifting adaptation level, it concerns response strength more directly.
• Associative Learning: Learning connections between events or between behavior and consequences, encompassing classical and operant conditioning.
• Behavior Reinforcement: A process in operant conditioning through which consequences increase the future probability of behavior.
• Social Comparison Theory: The process of evaluating ourselves and our circumstances in relation to other people.
• Reference Group Theory: How psychologically significant groups supply standards for evaluating status, success, values, and what feels normal.
• Subjective Wellbeing: A person’s evaluation of life satisfaction and emotional experience, both of which may be influenced by moving reference points.

References

Adamson, Robert (1971). Contrast effects and reinforcement. In Mortimer H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A symposium (pp. 159–168). Academic Press. ISBN: 978-0-12-059250-0
(Return to Main Text)

Boyce, Christopher J.; Brown, Gordon D. A.; Moore, Simon C. (2010). Money and happiness: Rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 21(4), 471–475. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610362671
(Return to Main Text)

Brickman, Philip; Campbell, Donald T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In Mortimer H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A symposium (pp. 287–302). Academic Press. ISBN: 978-0-12-059250-0
(Return to Main Text)

Brown, Donald R.; Reich, Carol M. (1971). Individual differences and adaptation-level theory. In Mortimer H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A symposium (pp. 215–232). Academic Press. ISBN: 978-0-12-059250-0
(Return to Main Text)

Di Tella, Rafael; Haisken-De New, John; MacCulloch, Robert (2010). Happiness adaptation to income and to status in an individual panel. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(3), 834–852. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2010.09.016
(Return to Main Text)

Diener, Ed; Lucas, Richard E.; Scollon, Christie Napa (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305–314. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.305
(Return to Main Text)

Frederick, Shane; Loewenstein, George (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In Daniel Kahneman, Ed Diener, and Norbert Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 302–329). Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN: 978-0-87154-424-7
(Return to Main Text)

Galak, Jeff; Redden, Joseph P. (2018). The properties and antecedents of hedonic decline. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 1–25. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011542
(Return to Main Text)

Haber, Ralph Norman (1958). Discrepancy from adaptation level as a source of affect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(4), 370–375. DOI: 10.1037/h0041761
(Return to Main Text)

Helson, Harry (1948). Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychological Review, 55(6), 297–313. DOI: 10.1037/h0056721
(Return to Main Text)

Helson, Harry (1964). Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. Harper & Row. ISBN: 978-0-06-042770-2
(Return to Main Text)

Helson, Harry (1971). Adaptation-level theory: 1970—and after. In Mortimer H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A symposium (pp. 5–18). Academic Press. ISBN: 978-0-12-059250-0
(Return to Main Text)

Janiszewski, Chris; Lichtenstein, Donald R. (1999). A range theory account of price perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 353–368. DOI: 10.1086/209544
(Return to Main Text)

Luhmann, Maike; Eid, Michael; Hofmann, Wilhelm; Lucas, Richard E. (2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 592–615. DOI: 10.1037/a0025948
(Return to Main Text)

Manis, Melvin (1971). Context effects in communication: Determinants of verbal output and referential decoding. In Mortimer H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A symposium (pp. 237–256). Academic Press. ISBN: 978-0-12-059250-0
(Return to Main Text)

Mussweiler, Thomas (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110(3), 472–489. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.472
(Return to Main Text)

Parducci, Allen (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72(6), 407–418. DOI: 10.1037/h0022602
(Return to Main Text)

Parducci, Allen; Calfee, Robert C.; Marshall, Louise M.; Davidson, Linda P. (1960). Context effects in judgment: Adaptation level as a function of the mean, midpoint, and median of the stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 65–77. DOI: 10.1037/h0044449
(Return to Main Text)

Rescorla, Robert A.; Wagner, Allan R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Abraham H. Black and William F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). Appleton-Century-Crofts. ISBN: 978-0-39-071801-3
(Return to Main Text)

Sarris, Viktor (1967). Adaptation-level theory: Two critical experiments on Helson’s weighted-average model. American Journal of Psychology, 80(3), 331–344. DOI: 10.2307/1420364
(Return to Main Text)

Sheldon, Kennon M.; Lyubomirsky, Sonja (2012). The challenge of staying happier: Testing the Hedonic Adaptation Prevention Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 670–680. DOI: 10.1177/0146167212436400
(Return to Main Text)

Skinner, Burrhus Frederic (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan. ISBN: 978-0-02-411270-5
(Return to Main Text)

Webber, Emily S.; Chambers, N. E.; Kostek, J. A.; Mankin, David E.; Cromwell, Howard Casey (2015). Relative reward effects on operant behavior: Incentive contrast, induction and variety effects. Behavioural Processes, 116, 87–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.05.003
(Return to Main Text)

Wilson, Timothy D.; Gilbert, Daniel T. (2008). Explaining away: A model of affective adaptation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 370–386. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00085.x
(Return to Main Text)