This article is part of "The America We Need," a Times Opinion series exploring how the nation can emerge from this crisis stronger, fairer and more free. Read the introductory editorial and the editor’s letter.

America will almost certainly emerge from the coronavirus pandemic as a different society. A new survey suggests the experience has already changed what we believe we owe our neighbors and how much economic inequality we find acceptable.

Seeking to understand how the crisis might affect Americans’ moral perspectives, Times Opinion partnered with Alexander W. Cappelen, Ranveig Falch, Erik O. Sorensen and Bertil Tungodden at FAIR — Centre for Experimental Research on Fairness, Inequality and Rationality. We surveyed a representative group of 8,000 Americans between March 18 and April 2. The results reveal a surprising paradox: The pandemic has increased Americans’ feelings of solidarity with others, but it has also increased their acceptance of inequalities due to luck.

These shifts may over time affect public opinion on policies for lessening the social and economic impact of the virus. The increase in solidarity has the potential to bolster unity among Americans and sharpen a focus on the more vulnerable groups in society. But the increase in acceptance of inequalities may work in the opposite direction, undermining efforts to help these groups and reduce inequalities. For the moment, the survey suggests that the shifts are effectively canceling out each other, leaving overall support for policies such as universal health care unchanged.

You can answer two of the key questions from the survey and compare your answers with what we found among Americans.

Should you prioritize solving your own problems or society’s? My own problems Society’s problems Submit

To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “It is unfair if luck determines a person’s economic situation.” Strongly disagree Strongly agree Submit

To identify how the crisis has shaped people’s moral perspective, the study used an experimental technique commonly employed in psychology and economics, known as priming. Before asking broader questions about solidarity and inequality acceptance, we randomly asked half the respondents how the coronavirus crisis affected their community. These questions made the crisis top of mind for these respondents, creating the context in which they would then consider the questions about inequality, and therefore allowed us to show how exposure to the crisis shapes people’s moral perspective.

Using this technique, the survey showed that the crisis is moving Americans toward solidarity. Respondents who were primed to think about the coronavirus crisis were more likely to focus on society’s problems rather than personal problems. We found this shift independent of political affiliation, gender, age or geography. Overall, the share of respondents who put at least as much weight on society’s interests as their own increased by 3.3 percentage points, from 37.6 percent to 40.9 percent. (While that might seem small, such a difference is significant in this type of survey.)

The increase in solidarity may reflect that the crisis highlights the selfless behavior of others. The past weeks have put a spotlight on community engagement and, in particular, on the personal risks nurses and doctors are taking to treat their communities. The increase may also reflect growing recognition of our mutual dependence and the fact that we sacrifice our own desires, such as going outside, in the spirit of keeping one another healthy.

The Coronavirus has made Americans care more about their country On a scale of 0–10, should you prioritize solving your own problems or society’s? All, primed 3.6 Democrats, unprimed 3.8 All, unprimed 3.5 Republicans, unprimed 3.0 Society’s problems My own problems When respondents were primed to think about the crisis, they moved toward the average for Democrats and were more likely to prioritize society’s problems The Coronavirus has made Americans care more about their country On a scale of 0–10, should you prioritize solving your own problems or society’s? Democrats, unprimed 3.8 All, primed 3.6 All, unprimed 3.5 Republicans, unprimed 3.0 Society’s problems My own problems When respondents were primed to think about the crisis, they moved toward the average for Democrats and were more likely to prioritize society’s problems

Especially given that shift in sentiment, the findings on economic inequality were surprising.

As Americans have watched both neighbors and world leaders test positive for the coronavirus, the crisis has highlighted the role of luck in people’s well-being. Yet at the same time, they’ve learned they can protect themselves against the coronavirus through their own actions — by staying inside, washing their hands and wearing a mask when buying groceries. That same swirl of luck and individual effort can affect whether people born into poor families can make more money than their parents. Before conducting the survey, we expected that how luck plays out in this crisis might lead people to become less accepting of inequalities due to mere chance.

Instead, we found that respondents who were primed to think about the crisis had less of a problem with economic inequality due to luck. Compared with a control group, the priming decreased the share who found inequality due to luck unfair by 5.9 percentage points, to 54.2 percent from 60.3 percent. That is a significant shift. One possible interpretation of this finding is that it reveals a self-serving bias that can be a means of self-protection. Becoming more accepting of inequality due to luck provides a logic for not sharing more of our personal resources with those who are suffering or not volunteering in other ways to help. Those Americans not heavily affected by the crisis might be finding it easier to adapt if their mindset is “After all, luck is part of life.”

The Coronavirus has made Americans care less about inequality On a scale of 1–5, to what extent do you agree with the following statement: “It is unfair if luck determines people’s economic situation.” All, unprimed 3.7 Republicans, unprimed 3.4 All, primed 3.6 All, Democrats 4.0 Strongly agree Strongly disagree Primed respondents had less of a problem with inequality due to luck, as did Republicans The Coronavirus has made Americans care less about inequality On a scale of 1–5, to what extent do you agree with the following statement: “It is unfair if luck determines people’s economic situation.” All, primed 3.6 All, unprimed 3.7 Democrats, unprimed 4.0 Republicans, unprimed 3.4 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Primed respondents had less of a problem with inequality due to luck, as did Republicans

These changes in moral perspective may have important implications for politics. The study shows that respondents who prioritized America’s problems over their own were more likely to favor economic redistribution and universal health care. But respondents who were more accepting of luck-based inequality were less likely to favor such policies. So we have two findings pulling in opposite directions. In line with this, the study did not find any effect of the crisis on the policy preferences of the respondents. But the movement in moral perspectives already suggests that this is a dynamic situation, and the balance of policy preferences could shift significantly as the crisis evolves.

Americans who think inequality is unfair also favor progressive policies Difference in the share of respondents who do and don’t support various policies Strongly agree inequality is unfair Support for universal health care Somewhat agree +10 pct. pts +5 Neutral 0 Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Support for economic redistribution Strongly agree inequality is unfair +10 pct. pts Somewhat agree +5 0 Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Americans who think inequality is unfair also favor progressive policies Difference in the share of respondents who do and don’t support various policies Strongly agree inequality is unfair Support for universal health care Somewhat agree +10 pct. pts +5 Neutral More support 0 More don’t support Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly agree inequality is unfair Support for economic redistribution +10 pct. pts Somewhat agree +5 More support 0 More don’t support Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral

While the study was designed to identify the direction in which the crisis moved Americans’ moral perspectives, it doesn’t allow us to estimate the size of the effect. But there are indications in the data that lead us to believe that these effects are of great importance. For comparison, the change in the moral perspective of Americans due to the subtle reminder using priming equals one-fifth of the difference that we observe between Republicans and Democrats in the control group. The full impact of the crisis is likely to be much larger than the effect we observed in this study.

The study cannot say whether the effects on Americans’ moral perspectives will prove lasting. However, related research on wars, natural disasters and economic shocks has shown that people internalize moral perspectives that emerge in times of crisis. For example, experimental research on the consequences of the violent conflicts in Burundi shows that exposure to violence makes people show more solidarity in the long run, even once the violence has abated.

The study also captures the significant decline in the level of happiness of respondents across the board during the crisis, with the poorer respondents showing the greatest decreases in their happiness. Respondents were asked to rate their level of happiness on a scale of zero to 10, with 10 the happiest. The response overall fell 12.5 percent to a mean happiness level of 6.07 in our latest survey, compared with 6.94 in the 2019 survey conducted as part of the annual World Happiness Report. That decrease is much larger than the reduction in happiness during the previous financial crisis.

A big drop in happiness during the crisis for lower-income Americans Difference between income groups in reported well-being on a scale of 1 to 10 8 Above median income 7 The gap between rich and poor Americans’ happiness has expanded Below median income 6 2010 2015 2020 A big drop in happiness during the crisis for lower-income Americans Difference between income groups in reported well-being on a scale of 1 to 10 8 Above the median income 7 Below the median income The gap between rich and poor Americans’ happiness has expanded 6 5 2010 2015 2020 Source: Data before 2020 from the Gallup World Poll

The reduction in happiness for poorer people — who already were at lower levels before the crisis — was about twice as large as the reduction in happiness for richer people, reflecting their greater vulnerability to the virus and the sharp economic downturn. Americans with income below the median nationally reported a happiness level 18.6 percent lower than last year’s, dropping from a mean of 6.71 to 5.46 on the 10-point scale. In contrast, Americans with above-median income reported a happiness level 10.3 percent lower than in the 2019 survey, with the mean response falling from 7.24 to 6.60.