Strangers twice as kind as we think, study suggests
Strangers are about twice as kind as people think, a study looking at happiness across the globe suggests.This year's World Happiness Report - released on Thursday - measured trust in strangers by deliberately losing wallets, seeing how many were returned and comparing that with how many people thought would be handed in.The rate of wallets returned was almost twice as high as people predicted and the study, which gathered evidence from around the world, found belief in the kindness of others was more closely tied to happiness than previously thought. The report ranked Finland as the world's happiest country for the eighth year running, with the US and UK slipping down the list.
John F. Helliwell, an economist at the University of British Columbia and a founding editor of the report, said the wallet experiment data showed "people are much happier living where they think people care about each other".He added the study showed people were "everywhere too pessimistic", with wallets much more likely to be returned than predicted.The 13th annual World Happiness Report, released to mark the UN's International Day of Happiness, ranks the world's happiest countries by asking people to evaluate their lives.Finland again took top spot with an average score of 7.736 out of 10, while Costa Rica and Mexico have entered the top 10 for the first time.Both the UK and the US slipped down the list to 23rd and 24th respectively - the lowest-ever position for the latter.The study, published by the University of Oxford's Wellbeing Research Centre, asked people to rate their own lives on a scale of 0-10 - zero being the worst possible life and 10 being the best possible life.Country rankings are based on a three-year average of those scores.
The 2025 World Happiness Report also found:declining happiness and social trust in the US and parts of Europe combined to explain the rise and direction of political polarisation;sharing meals with others was strongly linked with wellbeing across the globe;household size was closely linked to happiness, with four to five people living together enjoying the highest levels of happiness in Mexico and Europe
Jeffrey D. Sachs, president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, said the findings reconfirmed "happiness is rooted in trust, kindness, and social connection". "It is up to us as virtuous individuals and citizens to translate this vital truth into positive action, thereby fostering peace, civility, and wellbeing in communities worldwide," he said.Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, director of Oxford's Wellbeing Research Centre, added: "In this era of social isolation and political polarisation we need to find ways to bring people around the table again - doing so is critical for our individual and collective wellbeing."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
School's nearly out for summer and there's one word on every mother's lips – help!
Everyone told me 'the juggle' would get easier when my daughter started reception this year. It was, quite simply, a lie. As any parent of a school-aged child will tell you they're hardly ever there. Mothers started exchanging panicked messages about the summer holiday in our class WhatsApp group in May, sharing links to clubs and childcare options they've already booked, which all look terrible, and possibly worse than just juggling it all at home. And I only have one child. This week, a UN report revealed that millions of people around the world are not having as many children as they would like, and I know why: yes, it's 'the high cost of parenthood', and for many of us a big part of that is paying for something to do with your offspring when school is not looking after them. One option is a gymnastic 'camp' – which is out of town, only a week long, and finishes by 3pm. I could thrust my five-year-old into a new hobby, but would it really be worth it for just a week? What about the other five of the summer holidays? Assuming I work from home, with a 9am drop-off, I could be back at my desk by 9.45 but then I would have to leave again by 2.30, which hardly seems worth it. By the time we'd got into the swing of things, the camp would have ended and I'd need a new sport lined up to take its place the following Monday. A few school mums say they've booked in with a local private school, over the English border from where I live in Wales. There's a PE teacher running something open to nearby schools, which also doesn't cover the whole holiday and would cost a fortune. The money isn't really the issue though, because even if you have money, there's nowhere to go and even the terrible options are always booked up fast. It's not like there's an amazing solution and it's just out of reach – there's truly just nothing available. And the au pair system was killed by Brexit, so that's not an option any longer either. The problem is, there's more school leave than parents are legally entitled to take from work, and we're living in a two-income economy. If two parents added both of their 5.6 weeks of leave together, and were guaranteed the leave they asked for, it still wouldn't cover the amount of school holiday – and that's assuming they never took any time off together as a family. The school calendar hasn't been updated since it was created in the Victorian era, when the way we worked and parented looked very different. To top it all, this generation of boomer grandparents don't want to help either, because they want to 'enjoy retirement' and go on holidays instead. The standard of parenting expected of us is like nothing history has ever seen. Even when families did have two working parents, like in my family, no one took time off work to look after the kids. They just didn't look after them. My grandparents would both work and leave my dad to find his own fun until dinner time, but today we would (rightly) call that child neglect. Once he was hit by a car, because he was too young to know you have to look both ways when crossing the road. He was on his way to the beach, with another child, to sail a raft he'd built. In the sea. And it's a gendered issue. I haven't seen any dads in the chat talking about solutions, because for most of them, it's not a problem. They get to go off and do their work, and attend their conferences, without worrying about it. They don't get frantic calls from their wives asking them to troubleshoot childcare problems if they dare try to leave the house. Even part-time jobs are not properly designed for parents. Part-timers who work three days a week will only be entitled to 16.8 days of leave and the school holidays take up to 13 weeks. And that's before we get into the inset days and sick days, and who covers them? (It's mothers; it's me.) It doesn't have to be this way. In other countries, like the US, they shove their children off to overnight camps for nine to 12 weeks at a time. It's not a perfect solution, but at least people can stay employed. The French, as always, seem to have it right by just taking off for the summer with their gorgeous annual leave. The most workable solution I've seen is Amazon's 'term-time' contract, which allows parents to take 10 weeks of leave a year while keeping a full-time job, with a combination of paid and unpaid holiday leave. They've been running the scheme since 2023, and the company hasn't crashed and burned yet. If only more companies could see the benefits – which include a diverse workforce filled with mothers with a host of skills companies are missing out on. Childcare is infrastructure. Just like we need roads, a public health system and transport, the country needs a childcare solution. Today's children will pay for your pensions, provide your healthcare and build your roads. But only if we make it possible for people to keep having them. Rhiannon Picton-James is a freelance journalist and opinion writer. She writes on gender, culture and society
Daily Mirror
21 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
The 30 greatest playground games of all time - from hide and seek to tag
A study of 2,000 adults has uncovered the greatest ever playground games which are still enjoyed by children in school today. A survey of 2,000 adults has revealed which classic children's games have stood the test of time and are still considered the 'best playground games' today. Favourites such as marbles, British Bulldog, conkers and 'What's the Time, Mr Wolf?' all feature in the top 10. Meanwhile, the list also included other well-liked games such as football cards, yo-yos, 'Cat's Cradle' and hopscotch. The research has shown that over half of adults spent time outside playing games every single day when they were at school. The majority believe these social interactions were key when it came to making friends; nearly three quarters regarded these play sessions with friends as some of their fondest childhood memories. Gillian McMahon, executive director of the international charity Right To Play, said: "Play is a deep-rooted part of childhood in the UK; however, millions of children globally are unable to claim this basic right." Right to Play is an organisation which strives to transform the lives of millions of children every year through play. "Extreme challenges such as conflict, poverty, child labour and early marriage are depriving many vulnerable children of the childhood they deserve," Gillian added. The research was published to coincide with International Day of Play, on June 11. This annual UN-recognised day promotes awareness about the crucial role of play for children and underscores play as a fundamental right. The study indicated that the majority of adults were unaware that play is recognised as a basic right for children under international law. However, 67% believe every child should have a right to play, with physical exercise, making friends, and building social skills such as empathy and cooperation seen as key advantages of playing. Gillian McMahon added: "Many children are denied the chance to just be kids. We are working to change this situation. "Through our global programmes, we are reaching more than 4.7 million vulnerable children each year in some of the most difficult places on earth. "Using the power of play we are helping children to stay in school, resist exploitation, overcome prejudice and heal from the trauma of war and displacement." TOP 30 PLAYGROUND GAMES OF ALL TIME: Hide and Seek Tag/You're It Skipping ropes (solo and group games) Marbles Hopscotch Conkers British Bulldog What's the Time, Mr Wolf? Football stickers Football cards Hand clapping games (e.g. A Sailor Went to Sea, Miss Mary Mack) Cat's Cradle Yo-Yos Simon Says Sticker albums Stuck in the Mud Duck, Duck, Goose Top Trumps Swingball Ring-a-Ring o' Roses Elastics Paper fortune tellers (chatterboxes) 'The Floor is Lava' Pokemon cards Tamagotchis Pogs Grandma's Footsteps Sleeping Lions Double Dutch Loom bands
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Real reasons people do not have the number of children they want revealed in new report
Millions of people are prevented from having the number of children they want by a toxic mix of economic barriers and sexism, a new UN report has warned. Factors such as the high cost of parenthood, job insecurity, expensive housing, concerns over the state of the world and the lack of a suitable partner stop people having the families they want, rather than any desire not to have children, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), said. While right-wing governments, including the US and Hungary, are increasingly blaming falling fertility rates on a rejection of parenthood, the UNFPA's 2025 State of World Population report found most people wanted children. Dr Natalia Kanem, executive director of UNFPA, said: 'The issue is lack of choice, not desire, with major consequences for individuals and societies. That is the real fertility crisis, and the answer lies in responding to what people say they need: paid family leave, affordable fertility care and supportive partners.' A poll for the report carried out by YouGov in 14 countries found almost a fifth of people said they did not have the size of family they desired, with one in nine believing they would have fewer children than they wanted and 7% that they would have more. The leading barrier to having children was money, with 39% of people saying financial constraints had either led to them having fewer children than desired or were likely to do so. Women were nearly twice as likely as men to say that an unequal division of domestic labour was a factor, while both men and women said fears about the future, including around climate change and conflict, had meant they limited their family size. 'Many countries are grappling with ageing and shrinking populations, labour shortages, and rising healthcare and pension costs. These are real concerns, yet they are leading some to the wrong conclusions,' said Kanem. 'Rather than promoting women's workforce participation, which is actually shown to improve economic productivity, amid population ageing there seems to be a growing insistence that women and young people have more children. 'In some cases, it may be the neighbour next door urging you to get married before it's too late. In others, it may be the government putting up advertisements that basically say the same thing. And in some instances, it is countries imposing restrictions on the availability of contraceptives and other services.' However, neither coercive policies aimed at increasing births (such as restrictions on abortion and contraception), nor financial incentives such as US proposals for a $5,000 'baby bonus' paid to new mothers, nor efforts to tackle decreasing fertility rates appear to have much long-term impact and could backfire, the report warns. Lack of access to safe terminations led to unsafe abortions, a leading cause of maternal death and of infections that caused infertility, Kanem said. 'We also see that when people feel their reproductive choices are being steered, when policies are even just perceived as being too coercive, people react and they are less likely to have children. 'Clearly,' she added, 'the answer lies not in limiting choice or selecting who gets to exercise choice; the answer is to expand real choice to all people.'
