Short agony or long ache: comparing sources of suffering that differ in duration and intensity
Welfare Footprint Institute. https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/y74ef (2024)
Read the full text Read the full text (PDF)
Abstract
The Welfare Footprint framework quantifies the cumulative load of affective experiences an individual, or population, experiences over a period of time. Although applicable to affective states of positive and negative valence, it is primarily focused on the latter. Here, evidence-based estimates of the time spent in pain of four intensities (Annoying, Hurtful, Disabling, and Excruciating) are used to quantify welfare impact in different scenarios, and thus help prioritize among welfare interventions. However, in some cases trade-offs may arise between brief intense pain and distress or longer lasting pain and distress of a milder intensity. Here we review the extent to which existing evidence could be used to establish a weighting system between pain intensity categories, hence a single scale of pain and distress. The perceived unpleasantness of pain, as subjectively rated on pain intensity scales, escalates disproportionatelly with these ratings, suggesting that experiences of more severe unpleasantness feel disproportionately worse compared to their placement on a typical scale. Determining the exact form of the relationship, however, is still challenging, as insights from human pain studies are limited and difficult to apply to animals, and designing experiments to address this issue in animals is inherently challenging.
Recommended citation:
Schuck-Paim, C. and Alonso, W. J. (2024). Short agony or long ache: comparing sources of suffering that differ in duration and intensity. Welfare Footprint Institute Technical Paper Series: 242 DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Y74EF