Would you give up the ability to climb a flight of stairs in exchange for the assurance that your country upholds democratic freedoms?
A new study asked Americans to consider surprising trade-offs—health versus dignity, income versus rights, convenience versus environmental quality. Their answers revealed consistent patterns in how people value very different aspects of life, offering a practical way to compare “apples and oranges” in policy decisions.
This approach could help governments, hospitals, and other institutions design policies that better reflect real human priorities.
Which holds more value: the physical ability to walk up a flight of stairs, or the knowledge that your country protects democratic norms?
A recent study led by Prof Ori Heffetz of Hebrew University and Cornell University, together with colleagues Prof Daniel J. Benjamin (UCLA), Prof Kristen B. Cooper (Gordon College), Prof Miles S. Kimball (University of Colorado), and Ph.D. student Tushar Kundu (Columbia University), explores how ordinary people assign value to widely differing aspects of life—and how their responses can inform smarter public policy.
Turning Intuition into Data
Conducting a large-scale survey of 896 respondents across the US, the team asked participants to make difficult trade-offs between things rarely compared: health versus family, income versus dignity, convenience versus rights. For example, how much happiness would you sacrifice if local air quality worsened? What is the value of feeling respected within your community? The results revealed not only priorities but also a practical way to measure them.
“We often speak of values as if they’re impossible to compare,” the researchers noted. “But when presented with clear choices, people reveal what truly matters to them.”
The Problem with Apples and Oranges
Economists and policymakers have long struggled to weigh “apples and oranges” in drafting policies. How do you balance public health against freedom of speech? Jobs versus environmental protection? This study shows the public is not only capable of answering such questions but also that collective responses form consistent patterns to guide difficult policy decisions.
In a striking finding, individuals showed surprising coherence in how they assigned value across different areas—even if their personal experiences differed greatly. This suggests well-designed surveys can meaningfully capture what people consider a “better” life.
A Tool for Policy, Grounded in Humanity
Going beyond academic theory, the study offers a practical framework for governments, hospitals, and international agencies to evaluate policy trade-offs based on real human judgements—rather than arbitrary dollar amounts or political ideologies.
“We are presenting a scientifically sound, yet deeply human, approach to measuring wellbeing,” the researchers explain. “It’s about listening to people when they tell us what matters most—and using that insight to make better decisions.”
The research paper, titled What Do People Want?, is published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and is available to Read Here
Researchers:
- Daniel J. Benjamin (UCLA),
- Kristen B. Cooper (Gordon College),
- Ori Heffetz (Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Cornell University),
- Miles S. Kimball (University of Colorado Boulder),
- Tushar Kundu (Columbia University)