Pain gets a price tag: New method outshines standard pain assessments (Paul McClure, September 29, 2025, New Atlas)
Alongside these pain assessments using traditional methods, the researchers tested their “monetary equivalence” (ME) method. Participants were repeatedly asked whether they would accept a certain amount of money to experience the same painful stimulus again, or choose a smaller amount to avoid it. Example: “Would you rather get 15 Swiss francs and feel the pain again, or 10 Swiss francs and no pain?” The point where a participant switched from “no pain” to “pain” revealed how much the pain was “worth” to them in monetary terms. Two versions of the ME method were tested: ME1, where questions were listed in increasing order of money (enforcing consistency); and ME2, where the same questions were asked randomly (allowing for some inconsistency).
Across all three experiments, the monetary methods (ME1 and ME2) outperformed the traditional scales at distinguishing between high- and low-pain conditions. Effect sizes – that is, how strongly the measure distinguished between groups – were dramatically larger for ME1 and ME2 (“very large”) compared to standard pain scales (“small to medium”). Even in the analgesic study, where traditional scales often failed or even showed misleading results (for example, participants reporting more pain after receiving an analgesic), the monetary measures correctly and significantly detected differences. This likely happened because participants expected the anesthetic to eliminate the pain completely, and when it didn’t, they rated their pain higher. It’s a psychological effect the monetary method avoids.