Public willing to trade personal well-being for greater societal equality, study finds

Researchers used a 'veil of ignorance' thought experiment to gauge preferences between an equal but modest society and an unequal one with higher average well-being. Survey responses indicated that most people would accept lower overall life satisfaction to ensure a fairer distribution of outcomes. The work quantifies the efficiency-equity trade-off, showing a general public preference for reducing inequality over maximizing aggregate happiness.

EXPANDED:

The study translates a philosophical thought experiment into measurable preferences using life satisfaction data on a zero-to-10 scale, the same metric employed by the UK's Office for National Statistics, where the national average sits around 7.5. Participants weighed hypothetical risks—such as accepting a medical treatment with a nine-in-ten chance of improvement but a one-in-ten chance of decline—to calibrate how individuals value certainty versus potential gain.

The researchers also tested decisions made on behalf of others, such as ending a pandemic lockdown that would benefit most but harm a small minority. Their computer simulations, based on the UK's actual distribution of life satisfaction, suggest the average respondent would surrender roughly one full point of average well-being to achieve perfect equality, though the authors acknowledge such an outcome would be practically impossible and potentially dystopian