Abstract:
How should well-being be prioritised in society, and what trade-offs are people willing to make between fairness and personal well-being? We investigate these questions using a stated preference experiment with a nationally quasi-representative UK sample (n = 300), in which participants evaluated life satisfaction outcomes for both themselves and others under conditions of uncertainty. Individual-level utility functions were estimated using an Expected Utility Maximisation (EUM) framework and tested for sensitivity to the overweighting of small probabilities, as characterised by Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT). A majority of participants displayed concave (risk-averse) utility curves and showed stronger aversion to inequality in societal life satisfaction outcomes than to personal risk. These preferences were unrelated to political alignment, suggesting a shared normative stance on fairness in well-being that cuts across ideological boundaries. The results challenge use of average life satisfaction as a policy metric and support the development of nonlinear utility-based alternatives that more accurately reflect collective human values. Implications for public policy and well-being measurement are discussed.
