人们更在乎社会福祉公平，而非个人风险，且与政治立场无关。
Individual utilities of life satisfaction reveal inequality aversion unrelated to political alignment
- 通过问卷实验建模个体效用函数，分析对公平与风险的权衡
- 多数人更厌恶社会福祉不平等，而非自身面临的风险
- 结果适用于公共政策与价值观对齐的AI设计
我们利用英国全国代表性样本（n=300）的显性偏好实验，研究人们在不确定性条件下对自己与他人生活满意度结果的评估。基于期望效用最大化框架，估计了个体层面的效用函数，并检验其对小概率事件过度重视的敏感性，该特征由累积前景理论（CPT）刻画。结果显示，多数参与者表现出凹形（风险规避）效用曲线，且对社会生活满意度不平等的厌恶程度高于对个人风险的厌恶。这些偏好与政治立场无关，表明人们对福祉公平存在跨越意识形态的共同规范立场。研究挑战了以平均生活满意度作为政策指标的做法，支持发展更准确反映集体价值的非线性效用替代方案。文章讨论了对公共政策、福祉测量及价值观对齐的AI系统设计的意义。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。