IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lan/wpaper/421926304.html

Improving Numerical Measures of Human Feelings: The Case of Pain

Author

Listed:
  • Michele Garagnani
  • Petra Schweinhardt
  • Philippe N. Tobler
  • Carlos Alos Ferrer

Abstract

Numerical self-report scales are extensively used in economics, psychology, and even medicine to quantify subjective feelings, ranging from life satisfaction to the experience of pain. These scales are often criticized for lacking an objective foundation, and defended on the grounds of empirical performance. We focus on the case of pain measurement, where existing self-reported measures are the workhorse but known to be inaccurate and difficult to compare across individuals. We provide a new measure, inspired by standard economic elicitation methods, that quantifies the negative value of acute pain in monetary terms, making it comparable across individuals. In three preregistered studies, 330 healthy participants were randomly allocated to receive either only a high- or only a low-pain stimulus or a high-pain stimulus after having double-blindly received a topical analgesic or a placebo. In all three studies, the new measure greatly outperformed the existing self-report scales at distinguishing whether participants were in the more or the less painful condition, as confirmed by effect sizes, Bayesian factor analysis, and regression-based predictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Michele Garagnani & Petra Schweinhardt & Philippe N. Tobler & Carlos Alos Ferrer, 2025. "Improving Numerical Measures of Human Feelings: The Case of Pain," Working Papers 421926304, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
  • Handle: RePEc:lan:wpaper:421926304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/lums/economics/working-papers/LancasterWP2025_002.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Le-Yu & Oparina, Ekaterina & Powdthavee, Nattavudh & Srisuma, Sorawoot, 2022. "Robust Ranking of Happiness Outcomes: A Median Regression Perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 672-686.
    2. Caspar Kaiser & Andrew J. Oswald, 2022. "The scientific value of numerical measures of human feelings," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 119(42), pages 2210412119-, October.
    3. Shuo Liu & Nick Netzer, 2023. "Happy Times: Measuring Happiness Using Response Times," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(12), pages 3289-3322, December.
    4. Timothy N. Bond & Kevin Lang, 2019. "The Sad Truth about Happiness Scales," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(4), pages 1629-1640.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Alan B. Krueger, 2006. "Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    6. Caspar Kaiser & Andrew J. Oswald, 2022. "The scientific value of numerical measures of human feelings," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119(42), pages 2210412119-, October.
    7. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 902-912, June.
    8. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 530-545, June.
    9. Marieke Jepma & Leonie Koban & Johnny Doorn & Matt Jones & Tor D. Wager, 2018. "Behavioural and neural evidence for self-reinforcing expectancy effects on pain," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(11), pages 838-855, November.
    10. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    11. Chew, Soo Hong & Miao, Bin & Shen, Qiang & Zhong, Songfa, 2022. "Multiple-switching behavior in choice-list elicitation of risk preference," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    12. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    13. Roi Treister & Oluwadolapo D Lawal & Jonathan D Shecter & Nevil Khurana & John Bothmer & Mark Field & Steven E Harte & Grant H Kruger & Nathaniel P Katz, 2018. "Accurate pain reporting training diminishes the placebo response: Results from a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Foliano, Francesca & Tonei, Valentina & Sevilla, Almudena, 2024. "Social restrictions, leisure and well-being," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Stöckel, Jannis & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2023. "Adaptation in life satisfaction and self-assessed health to disability - Evidence from the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).
    3. Costi, Chiara & Clark, Andrew E. & Lepinteur, Anthony & D'Ambrosio, Conchita, 2023. "Healthcare Workers and Life Satisfaction during the Pandemic," IZA Discussion Papers 16680, IZA Network @ LISER.
    4. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Lazaridis, Panagiotis, 2012. "When a risky prospect is valued more than its best possible outcome," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, January.
    5. O'Connor, Kelsey J., 2022. "Measuring Progress," IZA Policy Papers 194, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Giovanna Devetag & Andreas Ortmann, 2007. "When and why? A critical survey on coordination failure in the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(3), pages 331-344, September.
    7. Klein Teeselink, Bouke & Zauberman, Gal, 2023. "The Anna Karenina income effect: Well-being inequality decreases with income," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 501-513.
    8. Xiaogeng Xu & Satu Metsälampi & Michael Kirchler & Kaisa Kotakorpi & Peter Hans Matthews & Topi Miettinen, 2023. "Which income comparisons matter to people, and how? Evidence from a large field experiment," Working Papers 2023-05, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    9. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    10. Giuseppe Attanasi & Christian Gollier & Aldo Montesano & Noemi Pace, 2014. "Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: a smooth ambiguity model experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 485-530, December.
    11. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    12. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    13. Gordon John Anderson & Teng Wah Leo, 2021. "On Extending Stochastic Dominance Comparisons to Ordinal Variables and Generalising Hammond Dominance," Working Papers tecipa-705, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    14. Rosenboim, Mosi & Shavit, Tal & Cohen, Chen, 2013. "Do bidders require a monetary premium for cognitive effort in an auction?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 99-105.
    15. Uri Ben-Zion & Jan Pieter Krahnen & TAL SHAVIT, 2007. "Subjective Evaluation Of Delayed Risky Outcomes: An Experimental Approach," Working Papers 0709, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    16. Tim Krieger & Christine Meemann & Stefan Traub, 2022. "Inequality, Life Expectancy, and the Intragenerational Redistribution Puzzle - Some Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9677, CESifo.
    17. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    18. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    19. Helland, Leif & Iachan, Felipe S. & Juelsrud, Ragnar E. & Nenov, Plamen T., 2021. "Information quality and regime change: Evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 538-554.
    20. Nathalie Colombier & Laurent Denant Boemont & Youenn Loheac & David Masclet, 2008. "Risk aversion: an experiment with self-employed workers and salaried workers," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(10), pages 791-795.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lan:wpaper:421926304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Giorgio Motta (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/delanuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.