The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Adaptive Preferences and Capabilities: Some Preliminary Conceptual Explorations
Abstract
The Capability Approach (CA) as developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, has in part been a response to the problem of adaptive preferences. Their argument says that people might adapt to certain unfavorable circumstances and any self-evaluation in terms of satisfaction or happiness will in this case necessarily be distorted. To evaluate people's well-being in terms of functionings and capabilities guarantees a more objective picture of people's life. Next to this strong criticism on subjective measurements of well-being, we observe an increasing interest in Subjective Well-Being (SWB) or Happiness studies that are included in the broader field of Hedonic Psychology. In this paper, we thus revise the original critique of adaptive preferences and compare it with a more detailed analysis of adaptation as it is presented in hedonic psychology. It becomes clear that adaptation can be a positive as well as a negative phenomenon and that the adaptive preference critique had a particular narrow view on adaptation. However, this does not mean SWB-research is not any longer susceptible to this critique. An alternative way to assess people's subjective well-being, but which could be considered to be more in line with the CA, is proposed by Daniel Kahneman's Objective Happiness. These are all relatively new considerations, especially in economics. Therefore much more research needs to be done on the positive and negative aspects of adaptation to understand its consequences on well-being – especially when evaluated within the capability-space.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 · Cited by 12,910
Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511841286 · Cited by 6,103
On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort.
Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382 · Cited by 1,289
Cited by
The many faces of hedonic adaptation
Klausen, S. H., Emiliussen, J., Christiansen, R., Hasandedic-Dapo, L., & Engelsen, S. (2022) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2021.1967308 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Teschl, M., & Comim, F.
- Venue
- Review of Social Economy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 229-247
- ISSN
- 0034-6764 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1162
- OpenAlex
- W2077083765
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Adaptive Preferences and Capabilities: Some Preliminary Conceptual Explorations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00346760500130374
- The paper
- Teschl, M., & Comim, F. (2005). Adaptive Preferences and Capabilities: Some Preliminary Conceptual Explorations. Review of Social Economy. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346760500130374
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.