In this book the tenability of prominent but conflicting allocation principles is evaluated
with the help of questionnaire studies. Particularly the acceptance of a compromise solution is
investigated which demands maximising total welfare subject to a certain floor level of
individual welfare of all people. An interdisciplinary approach is followed to motivate each
survey. With the help of graphical presentations consequences of different principles are
visualised. Trade-offs between competing notions are found to be much more likely than possibly
expected. Heterogeneity of justice attitudes can be witnessed in all studies. However the
principles of responsibility and needs seem to be of greater importance. Additionally the
gender of a respondent is found to have a major impact.
