The Portrait of A Hedonist
The Portrait of A Hedonist
The Portrait of A Hedonist
The portrait of a hedonist: The personality and ethics behind the value
and maladaptive pursuit of pleasure
Masha Ksendzova a,, Ravi Iyer b, Graham Hill a, Sean P. Wojcik c, Ryan T. Howell a
a
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 November 2014
Received in revised form 25 January 2015
Accepted 27 January 2015
Available online 16 February 2015
Keywords:
Hedonism
Values
Personality
Moral foundations
a b s t r a c t
Hedonism is the prioritizing of pleasure over other life values and is theorized to be independent of wellbeing. However, popular culture depicts hedonists as unhappy, as well as selshly unconcerned with others well-being. Because the current literature has not differentiated between peoples value of pleasure
and their maladaptive pursuit of it, we examined if these related, but not equivalent, dispositions had different personality and morality proles. We found that value-based hedonists have a distinct moral prole (i.e., they are less likely to endorse moral foundations associated with social conservatism) and, yet,
they differ little from others in regard to personality traits. We also found that peoples maladaptive
hedonism (i.e., excessive pleasure-seeking) was best predicted by their personality traits (i.e., being less
agreeable, less conscientious, and more neurotic) rather than by their conceptions of right and wrong. We
discuss how these results contribute to our understanding of hedonism and why some people pursue
their value of pleasure into over-indulgence.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
One famous ctional hedonist is Oscar Wildes character Dorian
Gray, an impulsive and selsh man whose pleasure-seeking is so
excessive that it leaves him deeply unhappy (Wilde, 1931). Hedonism, according to Schwartz (1992), is a persons prioritizing of
pleasure as a goal relative to other potentially important goals.
That is, a person who scores high on Schwartzs (1992) measure
of hedonism values the pursuit of pleasure more than universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, security, power, achievement, stimulation, and self-direction. However, a point of
divergence between popular culture and personality research is
that popular culture depicts hedonists as unhappy while there is
no empirical evidence of ill-adjustment among people who value
the pursuit of pleasure. In fact, Sagiv and Schwartz (2000) theorized that people can achieve happiness through attaining the out Corresponding author at: San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway
Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, United States. Tel.: +1 925 819 1259.
E-mail address: mksendz@gmail.com (M. Ksendzova).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.042
0191-8869/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
69
ness of maladaptive hedonists may instead reect only their personality traits, as opposed to their beliefs of what is right and
wrong. If maladaptive hedonistic behavior is merely an extreme
manifestation of valuing pleasure, then only value-based hedonism
should reect a distinct moral prole and maladaptive hedonism
by itself could be morally neutral.
Previous research has found inconsistent patterns in regard to
the moral prole of pleasure seekers, and this investigation into
the moral principles of value-based versus maladaptive hedonists
may also speak to these inconsistencies. For instance, Blickle,
Schlegel, Fassbender, and Klein (2006) found that people who
valued pleasure were more likely to commit white-collar crime
than those who prioritized other life values. However, Schwartz
found that peoples value of pleasure had no relationship with their
cooperative behavior (1996) and surprisingly a positive relationship with political activism often oriented toward social justice
(e.g., contacting politicians or boycotting products; 2006). These
inconsistencies elucidate the need to investigate the moral proles
of value-based hedonists (i.e., the principles through which they
conceptualize morality). Also, more research is needed to understand whether peoples value of pleasure in itself predicts their
concern for others well-being: are value-based hedonists really
selsh or do they simply believe pleasure is important?
1.3. Current study
To examine the personality and ethical differences between
people who simply prioritize pleasure over other values and those
who pursue it maladaptively, the present research aims to assess
the latter with a different measure of hedonismone that correlates negatively with well-being. Such a measure of maladaptive
pleasure-seeking should have a moderately strong relationship
with the value of pleasure (i.e., Schwartzs hedonism), which itself
is predicted to be independent of well-being (Sagiv & Schwartz,
2000). Moreover, we intend to assess maladaptive hedonism specically, as opposed to peoples general tendency to act impulsively or their unreliability (i.e., characteristics reected when
self-control is lacking). That is, we aim to demonstrate that maladaptive hedonism, though likely negatively correlated with selfcontrol, is divergent from self-control. After demonstrating that
value-based hedonism and maladaptive hedonism are distinct
from each other as well as from self-control, we will compare the
relationships of valued-based versus maladaptive hedonism with
personality traits and moral proles.
2. Study 1
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants and procedure
Sample 1 consisted of volunteer participants who completed
one or more surveys on the educational website BeyondThePurchase.Org (previously used as source of data for published
research; see Zhang, Howell, Caprariello, & Guevarra, 2014).
Among all eligible participants, we focused on the subsets who
completed either (a) the Maladaptive Hedonism Questionnaire
and the Schwartz Value Inventory (N = 149), (b) the Maladaptive
Hedonism Questionnaire and the Satisfaction with Life Scale
(N = 1,038), (c) the Schwartz Value Inventory and the Satisfaction
with Life Scale (N = 397), (d) the Maladaptive Hedonism Questionnaire and the Big Five Inventory-10 (N = 921), or the (e) the Schwartz Value Inventory and the Big Five Inventory (N = 149). The
participants who were included (N = 1,580; Mage = 31.52,
SD = 14.36; 71.0% female; 67.9% Caucasian) were similar in age,
gender composition, and ethnic background to the rest of the
70
website. Sample 2 consisted of paid participants recruited via Amazons Mechanical Turk, an online system of paid survey-takers (see
Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Paolacci, Chandler, &
Ipeirotis, 2010; for justication of using Mechanical Turk participants in research). These participants (N = 97; Mage = 36.64,
SD = 13.21; 65.1% female; 63% Caucasian) completed the
Maladaptive Hedonism Questionnaire, Schwartz Value Inventory,
Self-Control Scale, Satisfaction with Life Scale, and the Flourishing
Scale.
2.1.2. Measures
2.1.2.1. Value of pleasure. Peoples value of pleasure was measured
using the hedonism subscale from the 58-item Schwartz Value
Inventory (SVI; Schwartz, 1992). Participants rated the degree to
which each value served as a guiding principal in their lives on a
9-point Likert scale ranging from-1 (opposed to my values) to 7
(of supreme importance). Specically, the value of pleasure was
assessed by participants endorsement of pleasure: gratication
of desires, being self-indulgent: doing pleasant things, and enjoying life: enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc. (Sample 1: M = 3.94,
SD = 1.43, a = .77; Sample 2: M = 3.84, SD = 1.52, a = .73). Higher
scores on a subscale, such as hedonism, represented a greater
endorsement of that value. It is important to note is that participants were instructed to rate each values importance relative to
the importance of other values (i.e., choose the [value] that is
most important to you and rate its importance. . . next, choose
the value that is most opposed to your values and rate it). This
measurement of value-based hedonism intended to assess peoples
prioritizing of pleasure over other goals, as a relative value instead
of an absolute one.
2.1.2.2. Maladaptive hedonism. The measure of maladaptive hedonism, or excessive pleasure-seeking, was developed for this study.
First, we prompted participants to name an activity that brought
them the most pleasure and to write a brief description of it. Then,
participants answered eight questions that prompted them to
reect on the sacrices they tend to make in order to do the highly
pleasurable activity they named (e.g., To what extent do you avoid
your responsibilities? or To what extent do you overspend your
money?; see Appendix A). These sacrices included nancial
standing, social relationships, responsibilities or general obligations, health, a persons own well-being, life values (e.g., that of
ones family or religion), and long-term satisfaction with ones
choice to pursue the pleasurable activity. These items were
answered using a Likert sale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very
much). As expected, the average score fell below the midpoint,
indicating that the typical respondent was not a maladaptive pleasure-seeker (Sample 1: M = 2.75, SD = 1.10, a = .78; Sample 2:
M = 2.74, SD = 1.23, a = .81).
2.1.2.3. Satisfaction with Life. Subjective well-being was measured
with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Grifn, 1985; Sample 1: M = 4.62, SD = 1.34, a = .88; Sample 2:
M = 4.21, SD = 1.63, a = .92), which assesses peoples judgments of
how well their lives are going.
2.1.2.4. Flourishing. In Sample 2, we also included the Flourishing
Scale as another indicator of subjective well-being. The Flourish
scales measures the psychological resources and strengths that
contribute to the quality of a persons daily life (Diener et al.,
2010: M = 5.23, SD = 1.28, a = .93).
2.1.2.5. Self-control. In Sample 2, trait self-control was measured
with the 13-item Self-Control Scale (Tangney, Baumeister, &
Boone, 2004; M = 3.30, SD = 0.81, a = .88). This scale assesses peoples general capacity for self-discipline, inclination toward deliberate or non-impulsive actions, and reliability.
Value-based
hedonism (N = 389)
.03
.07
.12*
.07
.03
Maladaptive
hedonism (N = 921)
.11**
.34**
.03
.18**
.18**
p < .001.
p < .05.
71
3. Study 2
Study 2 aimed to conceptually replicate the differential relationships that value-based and maladaptive hedonism have with
(a) well-being, using a happiness IAT (with methods similar to
Walker & Schimmack, 2008), and (b) personality traits, using a
longer measure of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-44; John &
Srivastava, 1999). Also, and more importantly, we compared the
moral foundations of people who value pleasure and those who
pursue it to excess.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants and procedure
Study 2 consisted of volunteer participants who completed one
or more surveys hosted on the educational website YourMorals.
Org, which has served as a source of data for many recent articles
(e.g., Glenn, Koleva, Iyer, Graham, & Ditto, 2010; Graham et al.,
2011; Koleva, Graham, Haidt, Iyer, & Ditto, 2012). Participants of
interest were those who completed (a) the Maladaptive Hedonism
Questionnaire and the Schwartz Value Inventory (N = 1,036), (b)
the Maladaptive Hedonism Questionnaire and the Happiness IAT
(N = 517), (c) the Schwartz Value Inventory and the Happiness
IAT (N = 818), (d) the Maladaptive Hedonism Questionnaire and
Big Five Inventory (N = 1,283), (e) the Maladaptive Hedonism
Questionnaire, Schwartz Value Inventory, and the Big Five Inventory (N = 752), (f) the Maladaptive Hedonism Questionnaire and
the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (N = 3,886) as well as its supplemental questions (N = 164), or (g) the Schwartz Value Inventory
and the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (N = 1,283) as well as its
supplemental questions (N = 168). The participants who were
included (N = 4,079; Mage = 34.85, SD = 14.71; 40.9% female; 80.1%
Caucasian) were similar in age, gender composition, and ethnic
background to the rest of the website.
3.1.2. Measures
3.1.2.1. Value of pleasure. Peoples value of pleasure relative to
other values was again measured with the 3-item hedonism subscale of the 58-item SVI (Schwartz, 1992; M = 3.69, SD = 1.61;
a = .84).
3.1.2.2. Maladaptive hedonism. Maladaptive hedonism (i.e., excessive pleasure-seeking) was again measured with the Maladaptive
Hedonism Questionnaire employed in Study 1. Again, the mean
suggested that the average participants pleasure-seeking was
not maladaptive (M = 2.83; SD = .98; a = .72).
3.1.2.3. Implicit well-being. One goal of Study 2 was to conceptually
replicate the differential relationships of value-based and
maladaptive hedonism with well-being. We assessed implicit
72
4. Discussion
The present study explored the differences between people who
value of pleasure above other goals (i.e., value-based hedonists)
and people whose pleasurable pursuits require sacrices and come
at a cost to their well-being (i.e., maladaptive hedonists). To conrm the proposed difference between these two hedonism constructs, we examined their relationships with both explicit and
implicit well-being, nding that only maladaptive hedonism was
negatively related to well-being. Moreover, we differentiated maladaptive pleasure-seeking from generally inadequate self-control,
discovering that the two constructs independently predict wellbeing. We then tested for differential relationships of value-based
Table 2
Pearson correlations between value-based hedonism, maladaptive hedonism, and big
ve personality traits in Study 2.
Big ve personality
traits
Openness to experience
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
**
*
p < .001.
p < .05.
Value-based hedonism
(N = 752)
.01
.20**
.09*
.06
.04
Harm
Fairness
Authority
Loyalty
Purity
Maladaptive hedonism
(N = 1283)
.05
.32**
.02
.15**
.19**
Universalism
Liberal purity
Authenticity
Waste
Self-control
*
p < .001.
Value-based hedonism
(N = 1082)
Maladaptive hedonism
(N = 3886)
.04
.11*
.17*
.15*
.33*
.03
.01
.02
.02
.02
(N = 168)
.08
.06
.14
.05
.40*
(N = 164)
.05
.07
.01
.06
.09
73
5. Conclusion
While psychological research has consistently conceptualized
hedonism as a value of pleasure, it is important to distinguish people who value pleasure from people who pursue pleasure so excessively that it results in reduced well-being. Our results indicate
that the value of pleasure is associated with a distinct moral prole
(i.e., a distaste for moral principles associated with social conservatism), whereas maladaptive pleasure-seeking is rooted in personality (i.e., low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, and high
neuroticism). Overall, our results differentiated the value pleasure
from its excessive pursuit, suggesting that the personality and
moral prole of a hedonist is more complicated than Oscar Wildes
unhappy, impulsive, and selsh Dorian Gray.
Ethical statement
The work described in our submission has not been published
previously and it is not under consideration for publication anywhere but the Journal of Personality and Individual Differences.
All ve authors agree to the order of authorship, to submit the
manuscript in its present form, and to all ethical requirements outlined by Elsvier Editorial.
Appendix A.
A.1. Maladaptive Hedonism Questionnaire developed for Studies 1 and
2
Please select a type of activity that provides you the most pleasure (intellectual engagement and reection, taste and touch,
social interaction, excitement and thrill seeking, and helping others) and keep it in mind.
What is the activity, specically? How would you classify it?
Please write your answer below:
In order to do this activity:
To what extent do you overspend your money?
How often do you risk your close relationships with family,
friends, or romantic partners?
To what extent do you avoid your responsibilities?
How much do you ignore your health?
Even if you enjoy the activity, how much do you think it hurts
your emotional well-being later?
To what extent does this pleasurable activity contradict your
life values (e.g., family values, religion)?
How much you do regret this activity after time passes?
How hard is it to wait for this activity?
The response scale for these items was from (1) Not at all (2) (3) (4)
(5) (6) to (7) Very much.
References
Athota, V. S., & OConnor, P. J. (2014). How approach and avoidance constructs of
personality and trait emotional intelligence predict core human values. Learning
and Individual Differences, 31, 5158.
Blickle, G., Schlegel, A., Fassbender, P., & Klein, U. (2006). Some personality
correlates of business white-collar crime. Applied Psychology, 55(2), 220233.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazons Mechanical Turk a new
source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 6(1), 35.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The revised neo personality inventory (neo-pi-r).
The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, 2, 179198.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Grifn, S. (1985). The satisfaction with
life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 7175.
74
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., et al. (2010). New
well-being measures: Short scales to assess ourishing and positive and
negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143156.
Flowers, B. (2006). Uncle Jonny [The Killers]. On Sams town, Santa Monica:
Universal.
Glenn, A. L., Koleva, S., Iyer, R., Graham, J., & Ditto, P. H. (2010). Moral identity in
psychopathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 497505.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on
different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
96(5), 1029.
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping
the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual
differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 14641480.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the
implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197216.
Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and
overlapping well-being benets of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 11(6), 735762.
Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding libertarian
morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identied libertarians. PLoS
ONE, 7(8), e42366.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory
and research, 2(1999), 102138.
Koleva, S., Graham, J., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., & Ditto, P. H. (2012). Tracing the threads:
How ve moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes.
Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184194.
Luk, C. L., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Personality variation and values endorsement in
Chinese university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(3),
429437.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benets of frequent positive affect:
Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803.
Olver, J. M., & Mooradian, T. A. (2003). Personality traits and personal values: A
conceptual and empirical integration. Personality and individual differences,
35(1), 109125.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on amazon
mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411419.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A
10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal
of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203212.
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct
relations and congruity effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30,
177198.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and
empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 165). New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Basic human values: Theory, measurement and applications.
French Review of Sociology, 47(4), 929968.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of
integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.).
The psychology of values: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 124). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts
good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success.
Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271324.
Walker, S. S., & Schimmack, U. (2008). Validity of a happiness implicit association
test as a measure of subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality,
42(2), 490497.
Wilde, O. (1931). The Picture of Dorian Gray. Starbooks Classics.
Zhang, J. W., & Howell, R. T. (2011). Do time perspectives predict unique variance in
life satisfaction beyond personality traits? Personality and Individual Differences,
50(8), 12611266.
Zhang, J. W., Howell, R. T., Caprariello, P. A., & Guevarra, D. A. (2014). Damned if they
do, damned if they dont: Material buyers are not happier from material or
experiential consumption. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 7183.