Another study used a similar methodology with chronic pain patients [20], estimating the disutility of mild, moderate and severe chronic pain as, respectively, 0.04, 0.14, and 0.26 in a paper test, and as 0.16, 0.26, and 0.27 when interviewed face to face.
The severe pain of this study is less intense than disabling pain, right? You say disabling pain āprevents all forms of enjoyment or positive welfareā, which suggests its disutility would have to be at least 1, i.e. that being unconscious would be better.
The second study investigated postoperative pain and cancer pain [22]. Here, the relationship among seven categories of pain (2: just noticeable, 3: weak, 4: mild, 5: moderate, 6: strong, 7: severe, 8: excruciating) was best described by a power function of the form y=0.99*x^2.99 for patients with postoperative pain and a power function of the form y=1.1*x^2.14 for patients with chronic cancer pain, where x corresponds to the pain category (1 to 8) and y the perception of intensity/ādistress. This translates into a perception of intensity for the seven categories of respectively 1, 8, 25, 62, 122, 210, 333 and 496 (postoperative pain) and 1, 5, 12, 21, 34, 51, 71 and 94 (cancer pain).
Nitpicks:
The last sentence should read ā8 categoriesā instead of āseven categoriesā, since you list 8 numbers, and say āx corresponds to the pain category (1 to 8)ā?
The 3rd number for postoperative pain should be 26 (= 0.99*3^2.99) instead of 25?
From Figure 8 of Wallenstein et. al (1980), the power law for cancer pain is āy=1.19*x^2.14ā, not āy=1.1*x^2.14ā³ (there is a missing 9). So the intensities are 1, 5, 12, 23, 37, 55, 77 and 102 (the 1st 3 numbers are the same as yours).
But if the most intense pain, as evaluated in these studies, corresponded to the āDisablingā category, the equivalence between Annoying and Disabling pain would be best represented by a ratio of approximately 1 to 94-496.
From Figure 6 of Wallenstein et. al (1980), the least intense pain is categorised as āNoneā (x = 1), which sounds less intense than annoying pain[1]? I would say this is best described as āWeakā (x = 3). If so, and the most intense pain (āExcruciatingā, x = 8) corresponded to disabling pain (as you suggest above), this would be 8.16 (= (8/ā3)^2.14; cancer pain) to 18.8 (= (8/ā3)^2.99; postoperative pain) times as bad as annoying pain. For Wallenstein et. al (1980)ās power law fit to data on cancer and postoperative pain (y = 1.39*x^2.261), disabling pain would be 9.19 (= (8/ā3)^2.261) times as bad as annoying pain.
One potentially promising strategy would thus involve conducting extensive surveys where participants from diverse backgrounds, who experienced the events evaluated, make comparisons between painful (affective) experiences of varying intensities and durations.
Have you considered running/āsupporting surveys involving your definitions of pain (annoying pain, hurtful pain, disabling pain, and excruciating pain) and pleasure (satisfaction, joy, euphoria, and bliss)? Maybe collaborating with Animal Ask (@Ren Ryba), Faunalytics (@Bjƶrn Ćlafsson) or Rethink Priorities (@David_Moss). I guess Open Philanthropy (@Martin Gould) would be interested in funding it, as knowing how to compare different experiences is crucial to compare interventions.
For readersā reference, annoying pain is defined as follows:
Experiences of pain perceived as aversive, but not intense enough to disrupt the animalās routine in a way that alters adaptive functioning or affects the behaviors that animals are motivated to perform. Similarly, Annoying pain should not deter individuals from enjoying pleasant experiences with no short-term function (e.g., play) and positive social interactions. Sufferers can ignore this sensation most of the time. Performance of cognitive tasks demanding attention are either not affected or only mildly affected. Physiological departures from expected baseline values are not expected to be present. Vocalizations and other overt expressions of pain should not be observed.
Hi Vasco! Yes, it would be very interesting to collaborate on this. Right now we do not have the resources (in terms of people, and time) to do it ourselves, but we would gladly collaborate with anyone leading this effort. One possibility would be running WTP tests with people, from various demographics, to determine the extent to which they would pay to trade Disabling Pain by Hurtful Pain, or Excruciating Pain by Disabling Pain and so on (having the understanding of these intensities well explained and calibrated with examples, past experiences, etc, within a clear set of criteria). This would help understand some level of equivalence (though from a āhumanā perspective) between the categories, but also generate rational WTP numbers for any estimates of Cumulative Pain (e.g., if cage-free campaigns avert X hours of Disabling Pain per hen, and people are willing to pay on average 1-10 dollars to avert one hour of this pain, you can in theory calculate the extent to which they would pay more for improved welfare, run CBA analysis, apply these to funding decisions, etc)
Hi Cynthia, Wladimir and Cian,
Great post!
The severe pain of this study is less intense than disabling pain, right? You say disabling pain āprevents all forms of enjoyment or positive welfareā, which suggests its disutility would have to be at least 1, i.e. that being unconscious would be better.
Nitpicks:
The last sentence should read ā8 categoriesā instead of āseven categoriesā, since you list 8 numbers, and say āx corresponds to the pain category (1 to 8)ā?
The 3rd number for postoperative pain should be 26 (= 0.99*3^2.99) instead of 25?
From Figure 8 of Wallenstein et. al (1980), the power law for cancer pain is āy=1.19*x^2.14ā, not āy=1.1*x^2.14ā³ (there is a missing 9). So the intensities are 1, 5, 12, 23, 37, 55, 77 and 102 (the 1st 3 numbers are the same as yours).
From Figure 6 of Wallenstein et. al (1980), the least intense pain is categorised as āNoneā (x = 1), which sounds less intense than annoying pain[1]? I would say this is best described as āWeakā (x = 3). If so, and the most intense pain (āExcruciatingā, x = 8) corresponded to disabling pain (as you suggest above), this would be 8.16 (= (8/ā3)^2.14; cancer pain) to 18.8 (= (8/ā3)^2.99; postoperative pain) times as bad as annoying pain. For Wallenstein et. al (1980)ās power law fit to data on cancer and postoperative pain (y = 1.39*x^2.261), disabling pain would be 9.19 (= (8/ā3)^2.261) times as bad as annoying pain.
Have you considered running/āsupporting surveys involving your definitions of pain (annoying pain, hurtful pain, disabling pain, and excruciating pain) and pleasure (satisfaction, joy, euphoria, and bliss)? Maybe collaborating with Animal Ask (@Ren Ryba), Faunalytics (@Bjƶrn Ćlafsson) or Rethink Priorities (@David_Moss). I guess Open Philanthropy (@Martin Gould) would be interested in funding it, as knowing how to compare different experiences is crucial to compare interventions.
For readersā reference, annoying pain is defined as follows:
Hi Vasco! Yes, it would be very interesting to collaborate on this. Right now we do not have the resources (in terms of people, and time) to do it ourselves, but we would gladly collaborate with anyone leading this effort. One possibility would be running WTP tests with people, from various demographics, to determine the extent to which they would pay to trade Disabling Pain by Hurtful Pain, or Excruciating Pain by Disabling Pain and so on (having the understanding of these intensities well explained and calibrated with examples, past experiences, etc, within a clear set of criteria). This would help understand some level of equivalence (though from a āhumanā perspective) between the categories, but also generate rational WTP numbers for any estimates of Cumulative Pain (e.g., if cage-free campaigns avert X hours of Disabling Pain per hen, and people are willing to pay on average 1-10 dollars to avert one hour of this pain, you can in theory calculate the extent to which they would pay more for improved welfare, run CBA analysis, apply these to funding decisions, etc)