Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 35–51 | Cite as

Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions

  • Eric J. Johnson
  • John Hershey
  • Jacqueline Meszaros
  • Howard Kunreuther
Article

Abstract

A series of studies examines whether certain biases in probability assessments and perceptions of loss, previously found in experimental studies, affect consumers' decisions about insurance. Framing manipulations lead the consumers studied here to make hypothetical insurance-purchase choices that violate basic laws of probability and value. Subjects exhibit distortions in their perception of risk and framing effects in evaluating premiums and benefits. Illustrations from insurance markets suggest that the same effects occur when consumers make actual insurance purchases.

Key words

insurance decisions biases probability distortions framing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J. (1963). Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care,”American Economic Review 53, 941–969.Google Scholar
  2. Camerer, C. and H. Kunreuther. (1989). “Experimental Markets for Insurance,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 265–300.Google Scholar
  3. Combs, B. and P. Slovic. (1979). “Newspaper Coverage of Causes of Death,”Journalism Quarterly 56, 837–843.Google Scholar
  4. Committee for Economic Development. (1989).Who Shall be Liable? New York: Committee for Economic Development.Google Scholar
  5. Cummins, D. and S. Weisbart. (1978).The Impact of Consumer Services on Independent Insurance Agency Performance. Glenmont, NY: IMA Education and Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Dionne, G. and S. Harrington. (1992). “An Introduction to Insurance Economics.” In G. Dionne and S. Harrington (eds.),Foundations of Insurance Economics. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Eisner, Robert, and Robert H. Strotz. (1961). Flight Insurance and the Theory of Choice,”Journal of Political Economy 69, 355–368.Google Scholar
  8. Hershey, J. and P. Schoemaker. (1980). “Risk Taking and Problem Context in the Domain of Losses.”Journal of Risk and Insurance 47, 111–132.Google Scholar
  9. Hershey, J., H. Kunreuther, and P. Schoemaker. (1982). “Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions,”Management Science 28, 936–954.Google Scholar
  10. Insurance Information Institute. (1990a).1990 Property/Casualty Insurance Facts. New York: Insurance Information Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Insurance Information Institute. (1990b).No-Fault Auto Insurance. New York: Insurance Information Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Insurance Information Institute (1992).No-Fault Auto Insurance. New York: Insurance Information Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Kahneman, D. (1986). “Comments on the Contingent Valuation Method.” In R. G. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire, and W. D. Schulze (eds.),Valuing Environmental Good: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totawa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
  14. Kahneman, Daniel and Jack L. Knetsch. (1992). “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction,”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 57–70.Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard Thaler. (1990). “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,”Journal of Political Economy 98, 1325–1348.Google Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1984). “Choices, Values, and Frames,”American Psychologist 39, 341–350.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,”Econometrica 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  18. Kunreuther, H., R. Ginsberg, L. Miller, P. Sagi, P. Slovic, B. Borkin, and N. Katz. (1978).Disaster Insurance Protection: Public Policy Lessons. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Kunreuther, H., R. Hogarth, and J. Meszaros. (this issue). “Insurer Ambiguity and Market Failure,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.Google Scholar
  20. Lichtenstein, S., P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, M. Layman, and B. Combs. (1978). “Judged Frequency of Lethal Events,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 4, 551–578.Google Scholar
  21. Pashigian, B., L. Schkade, and G. Menefee. (1966). “The Selection of an Optimal Deductible for a Given Insurance Policy.”Journal of Business 39, 35–44.Google Scholar
  22. Ritov, I. and J. Baron. (1992). “Status-Quo and Omission Biases,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 49–61.Google Scholar
  23. Samuelson, W. and R. Zeckhauser. (1988). “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1, 7–59.Google Scholar
  24. State Farm. (1990).1990 State Farm Year. Bloomington, IL: State Farm.Google Scholar
  25. Thaler, R. (1985). “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,”Marketing Science 4, 199–214.Google Scholar
  26. Thaler, Richard and Eric J. Johnson. (1990). “Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice,”Management Science 36, 643–660.Google Scholar
  27. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,”Science 211, 453–458.Google Scholar
  28. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1983). “Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment,”Psychological Review 90, 293–315.Google Scholar
  29. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1991). “Loss Aversion and Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.Google Scholar
  30. United Press International. (1990). “The New Madrid Fault and the Prophecy of Iben Browning,” September 13. 1990.Google Scholar
  31. Winter, R. (1991). “The Liability Insurance Market,”Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 115–136.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric J. Johnson
    • 1
  • John Hershey
    • 2
  • Jacqueline Meszaros
    • 3
  • Howard Kunreuther
    • 4
  1. 1.The Wharton School, Marketing DepartmentUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia
  2. 2.The Wharton School, Department of Operations and Information ManagementUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia
  3. 3.School of Business and Management, Department of General and Strategic ManagementTemple UniversityPhiladelphia
  4. 4.The Wharton School, Department of Operations and Information ManagementUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations