Study: Most would trade personal happiness
A UK study finds 87% would accept lower personal life satisfaction for a more equal society, challenging the idea that fairness views are purely political.
Most people are willing to sacrifice some of their own life satisfaction to achieve a more equal society, according to new research. A study published in The Conversation found that 87% of UK respondents would make this trade-off, with the average person accepting roughly a one-point reduction on a ten-point scale.
The research, conducted with colleague Tommaso Reggiani, used a thought experiment known as the "veil of ignorance." This concept, from philosopher John Rawls, asks people to choose a society before knowing their position within it. The team quantified this by measuring subjective life satisfaction, a metric used by the UK's Office for National Statistics where 94% of people rate their satisfaction at five or above, with an average around 7.5.
The gamble of inequality
Participants were asked to rate hypothetical situations to understand their personal scales. They considered gambles akin to medical treatments: would you accept a treatment that improves your life satisfaction by one point nine times out of ten, but decreases it by one point the other time? The questions were then scaled up to policy decisions, like ending a pandemic lockdown to improve most people's wellbeing while causing a death rate of one in 10,000.
A computer model simulated these choices to assess real and hypothetical societies. The researchers compared the UK's current unequal distribution of life satisfaction with a hypothetical scenario where everyone had the same level. The one-point reduction figure, while representing an extreme and likely impossible situation, provides a measure of how much people value greater equality in wellbeing.
A surprising consensus on fairness
The findings challenge a familiar political narrative. While inequality is often framed as a left-right divide, the study found little connection between people's risk preferences and their voting patterns or broader political views. Decisions on behalf of others showed a common empathy, with most participants being more cautious with others' lives than with their own.
This suggests disagreement may lie less in the desired outcome of a fairer society and more in the methods believed to achieve it. The research indicates that policy based solely on maximizing average wellbeing is insufficient; it must also account for fairness. The UK government already gives greater weight to gains for the worst-off, but the study offers a more precise way to quantify these trade-offs.
The authors argue these values should be embedded in decisions across public services, from transport to the NHS, and should inform the AI systems used to assist policymakers. The research remains ongoing, with a focus on building a better consensus between the risk-taking and risk-averse. The work underscores a shared human preference for equity when considering the fundamental gamble of life's starting position.
