Individual utilities of life satisfaction reveal inequality aversion unrelated to political alignment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.07793v3
• Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 11:59:41 GMT
• Title: Individual utilities of life satisfaction reveal inequality aversion unrelated to political alignment
• Abstract summary: We use a stated preference experiment with a nationally representative UK sample.<n> participants evaluated life satisfaction outcomes for both themselves and others under conditions of uncertainty.<n>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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• 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 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, well-being measurement, and the design of value-aligned AI systems are discussed.

Related papers

• A Unifying Human-Centered AI Fairness Framework [2.9385229328767988]
  We introduce a unifying human-centered fairness framework that covers eight distinct fairness metrics.<n>Rather than privileging a single fairness notion, the framework enables stakeholders to assign weights across multiple fairness objectives.<n>We show that adjusting weights reveals nuanced trade-offs between different fairness metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-07T17:52:38Z)
• Harm Ratio: A Novel and Versatile Fairness Criterion [27.18270261374462]
  Envy-freeness has become the cornerstone of fair division research. We propose a novel fairness criterion, individual harm ratio, inspired by envy-freeness. Our criterion is powerful enough to differentiate between prominent decision-making algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T20:36:05Z)
• Assessing Group Fairness with Social Welfare Optimization [0.9217021281095907]
  This paper explores whether a broader conception of social justice, based on optimizing a social welfare function, can be useful for assessing various definitions of parity. We show that it can justify demographic parity or equalized odds under certain conditions, but frequently requires a departure from these types of parity. In addition, we find that predictive rate parity is of limited usefulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-19T01:41:04Z)
• Impact of Fairness Regulations on Institutions' Policies and Population Qualifications [9.863310509852402]
  We consider a system whose primary objective is to maximize utility by selecting the most qualified individuals. We examine conditions under which a discrimination penalty can effectively reduce disparity in the selection. We propose certain conditions that can counteract this undesirable outcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-06T07:21:41Z)
• Auditing Fairness under Unobserved Confounding [56.61738581796362]
  We show that, surprisingly, one can still compute meaningful bounds on treatment rates for high-risk individuals.<n>We use the fact that in many real-world settings we have data from prior to any allocation to derive unbiased estimates of risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T21:09:06Z)
• Policy Learning with Distributional Welfare [1.0742675209112622]
  Most literature on treatment choice has considered utilitarian welfare based on the conditional average treatment effect (ATE)<n>This paper proposes an optimal policy that allocates the treatment based on the conditional quantile of individual treatment effects (QoTE)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T14:51:30Z)
• Causal Fairness for Outcome Control [68.12191782657437]
  We study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable. In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision. We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:31:18Z)
• Reconciling Predictive and Statistical Parity: A Causal Approach [68.59381759875734]
  We propose a new causal decomposition formula for the fairness measures associated with predictive parity. We show that the notions of statistical and predictive parity are not really mutually exclusive, but complementary and spanning a spectrum of fairness notions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:23:22Z)
• Flexible social inference facilitates targeted social learning when rewards are not observable [58.762004496858836]
  Groups coordinate more effectively when individuals are able to learn from others' successes. We suggest that social inference capacities may help bridge this gap, allowing individuals to update their beliefs about others' underlying knowledge and success from observable trajectories of behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-01T21:04:03Z)
• Social Diversity Reduces the Complexity and Cost of Fostering Fairness [63.70639083665108]
  We investigate the effects of interference mechanisms which assume incomplete information and flexible standards of fairness. We quantify the role of diversity and show how it reduces the need for information gathering. Our results indicate that diversity changes and opens up novel mechanisms available to institutions wishing to promote fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-18T21:58:35Z)
• Joint Multisided Exposure Fairness for Recommendation [76.75990595228666]
  This paper formalizes a family of exposure fairness metrics that model the problem jointly from the perspective of both the consumers and producers. Specifically, we consider group attributes for both types of stakeholders to identify and mitigate fairness concerns that go beyond individual users and items towards more systemic biases in recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T19:13:23Z)
• Post-Contextual-Bandit Inference [57.88785630755165]
  Contextual bandit algorithms are increasingly replacing non-adaptive A/B tests in e-commerce, healthcare, and policymaking. They can both improve outcomes for study participants and increase the chance of identifying good or even best policies. To support credible inference on novel interventions at the end of the study, we still want to construct valid confidence intervals on average treatment effects, subgroup effects, or value of new policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T12:01:51Z)
• Fairness, Welfare, and Equity in Personalized Pricing [88.9134799076718]
  We study the interplay of fairness, welfare, and equity considerations in personalized pricing based on customer features. We show the potential benefits of personalized pricing in two settings: pricing subsidies for an elective vaccine, and the effects of personalized interest rates on downstream outcomes in microcredit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-21T01:01:56Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.