LETTER: The Lottery: happiness, public involvement and His opinion
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Dr Peter Ayton
Sir: Aside from the fact that lottery popularity is an ironic case of the Government hypocritically benefiting from the irrationality of market forces, those who queue to buy lottery tickets amid reports of the misery of winners ("pounds 22m winner is revealed as a loser in love", 13 June) would do well to consider that extremes of good (and bad) fortune affect us less than we think: happiness is relative.
A study of 22 major lottery winners in the US finds that lottery winners are no happier than non-winners and take significantly less pleasure from everyday events (eg talking with friends, watching television, hearing a funny joke). It seems that the peak experience of winning makes all other experiences pale by comparison.
One benefit is that the same principle holds in reverse for groups that suffer extremes of ill-fortune, like accidental paralysis; such groups adapt to be far happier than we might expect. There is also evidence that the inhabitants of poorer cities or countries are not less happy than the inhabitants of more favoured places. And, in spite of the search for the elusive feelgood factor, there are several studies showing no consistent relation between economic improvement and increased happiness.
Suggestions for capping lottery payouts because large amounts are unlikely to deliver an "extra slice of happiness" and "would spread the benefits among the runners-up" amusingly assume that the Lottery could be organised equitably, but the basic principle is inequity; the whole point is that there are more losers than winners. It would be most equitable, and create less misery for winners, if prizes were spread right down the list so all participants simply got their money back.
Sincerely,
PETER AYTON
Department of Psychology
School of Social Sciences
City University
London, EC1
13 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments