| Scenario | % Happier with A | % Would Choose A | Implied Aggregate Preference | p-Value (% Happier A=% Choose A) | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Environment (A) vs. pecuniary benefits (B) | 52 | 44 | Ambiguous | <0.00005* | 344 |
| 2. Pecuniary benefits (A) vs. social and lifestyle (B) | 45 | 51 | Ambiguous | 0.0011* | 335 |
| 3. Pecuniary benefits (A) vs. farm labor (B) | 44 | 48 | B is weakly preferred | 0.0045* | 335 |
| 4. Social and lifestyle (A) vs. farm labor (B) | 63 | 62 | A is preferred | 0.3465 | 338 |
| 5. Environment (A) vs. social and lifestyle (B) | 31 | 32 | B is preferred | 0.6509 | 807 |
| 6. Environment (A) vs. farm labor (B) | 58 | 58 | A is preferred | 0.5997 | 810 |
Note: The first two columns show aggregate proportions preferring option A for the happiness and choice questions. Column (3) shows which option for each scenario was preferred on average for both happiness and choice (i.e., between subjects). A weak preference relation is applied to scenario 3, where the aggregate split between options A and B was not found to be significantly different from 50/50 at the 5% level. Responses for scenarios 1–4 were collected from the first survey in 2019, and responses for scenarios 5 and 6 were collected from the second survey conducted in 2020.
↵* p < 0.05 for the null that the proportion happier with option A = the proportion that would choose option A.