An experimental investigation of insurance decisions in low probability and high loss risk situations

  • Ozlem Ozdemir
  • Andrea Morone
Regular Article


This experimental study investigates insurance decisions in low-probability, high-loss risk situations. Results indicate that subjects consider the probability of loss (loss size) when they make buying decisions (paying decisions). Most individuals are risk averse with no specific threshold probability.


Risk Insurance Low probability High loss  Experiment 

JEL Classification

C91 D81 


  1. Arrow KJ (1996) The theory of risk bearing: small and great risks. J Risk Uncertain 12(2/3):103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker GM, De Groot ME, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single response sequential method. Behav Sci 9:226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black K (2008) Business statistics for contemporary decision making, 5th edn. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Borling A, Keiding H (2002) Stochastic dominance and conditional expectation-an insurance theoretical approach. Geneva Pap Risk Insur Theory 27:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosman R, Sutter M, van Winden F (2005) The impact of real effort and emotions in the power-to-take game. J Econ Psychol 26(3):407–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosman R, van Winden F (2002) Emotional hazard in a power-to-take experiment. Econ J 112(476):147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camerer CF, Kunreuther H (1989) Decision processes for low probability events: policy implications. J Policy Anal Manag 8(4):565–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camerer C (1995) Individual decision making. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (eds) Handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 587–616Google Scholar
  9. Cherry TL, Frykblom P, Shogren JF (2002) Hardnose the dictotar. Am Econ Rev 92(4):1218–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook PJ, Graham DA (1975) The demand for insurance and protection: the case of the irreplaceable commodity. Draft report, Duke University, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Mauro C, Maffioletti A (2004) Attitudes to risk and attitudes to uncertainty: experimental evidence. Appl Econ 36:357–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dong W, Shah HC, Wong F (1996) A rational approach to pricing of catastrophe insurance. J Risk Uncertain 12(2/3):201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drehmann M, Oechssler J, Roider A (2007) Herding with and without payoff externalities—an internet experiment. Int J Ind Organ 25:391–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etchart-Vincent N (2004) Is probability weighting sensitive to the magnitude of consequences: an experimental investigation on losses. J Risk Uncertain 28(3):217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischbacher U (2007) Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments. Exp Econ 10:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ganderton PT, Brookshire DS, McKee M, Steward S, Thurston H (2000) Buying insurance for disaster-type risks: experimental evidence. J Risk Uncertain 20(3):271–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greiner B (2004) The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0 - A guide for the organization of experiments in economics. In: Kremer K, Macho V (eds) Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63, Göttingen : Ges. für Wiss. Datenverarbeitung. No. 10. University of Cologne, pp 79–93Google Scholar
  18. Grether DM, Plott CR (1979) Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. Am Econ Rev 69(4):623–638Google Scholar
  19. Güth W, Ortman A (2006) A behavioral approach to distribution and bargaining. In: Altman M (ed) Handbook of contemporary behavioral economics: foundations and developments. Sharpe ME, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Harbaugh W, Krause K, Vesterlund L (2002) Prospect theory in choice and pricing tasks. University of Oregon, Economics Department, Working papers, 27Google Scholar
  21. Hershey JC, Schoemaker PJH (1980) Risk taking and problem context in the domain of losses: an expected utility analysis. J Risk Insur 47(1):111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hey JD, Lee J (2005) Do subjects separate (or are they sophisticated)? Exp Econ 8:233–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hey JD, Morone A, Schmidt U (2009) Noise and bias in eliciting preferences. J Risk Uncertain 39(3):213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holt CA (1986) Preference reversals and the independence axiom. Am Econ Rev 76(3):508–515Google Scholar
  25. Kagel JH, Roth AE (1995) The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory, an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhn KM, Budescu DV (1996) The relative importance of probabilities, outcomes, and vagueness in hazard risk decisions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 68(3):301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kunreuther H, Slovic P (1978) Economics, psychology, and protective behavior. Am Econ Rev 68:2. Papers and proceedings of the ninetieth annual meeting of the American Economic Association, pp 64–69Google Scholar
  29. Laury SK (2006) Pay one or pay all: random selection of one choice for payment.
  30. Machina MJ, Pratt JW (1997) Increasing risk: some direct constructions. J Risk Uncertain 14:103–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McClelland GH, Schulze WD, Hurd B (1990) The effect of risk beliefs on property values: a case study of a hazardous waste site. Risk Anal 10(4):485–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McClelland GH, Schulze WD, Coursey DL (1993) Insurance for low-probability hazards: a bimodal response to unlikely events. J Risk Uncertain 7:95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McDaniels TL, Kamlet MS, Fischer GW (1992) Risk perception and the value of safety. Risk Anal 12(4):495–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morgenstern O (1979) Some reflections on utility theory. In: Allais M, Hagen O (eds) The expected utility hypothesis and the Allais paradox. D. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  35. Morone A (2010) On price data elicitation: a laboratory investigation. J Socio-Econ 39(5):540–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Müller A (1998) Comparing risks with unbounded distributions. J Math Econ 30:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Noussair C, Robin S, Ruffieux B (2004) Revealing consumers’ willingness-to-pay: a comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction. J Econ Psychol 25:725–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Plott CR, Zeiler K (2005) The willingness to pay- willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect”, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. Am Econ Rev 95(3):530–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pommerehne WW, Schneider F, Grether P, Plott CR (1982) Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon: a reexamination/reply. Am Econ Rev 72(3):569–576Google Scholar
  40. Rothschild M, Stiglitz JE (1970) Increasing risk: I. A. definition. J Econ Theory 2:225–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Safra Z, Segal U, Spivak A (1990) The Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism and nonexpected utility: a testable approach. J Risk Uncertain 3(2):117–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schade C, Kunreuther HC, Koellinger P (2012) Protecting against low-probability disasters: the role of worry. J Behav Decis Mak 25:534–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Segal U (1988) Does the preference reversal phenomenon necessarily contradict the independence axiom? Am Econ Rev 78(1):233–236Google Scholar
  44. Sheskin DJ (2004) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 3rd edn. Chapman & Hall, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  45. Sjöberg L (1999) Consequences of perceived risk: demand for mitigation. J Risk Res 2(2):129–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Corrigan B, Combs B (1977) Preference for insuring against probable small losses: insurance implications. J Risk Insur 44(2):237–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1980) Societal risk assessments: how safe is safe enough? In: Schwing RC, Albers W Jr (eds) Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Starmer C, Sugden R (1991) Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. Am Econ Rev 81(4):971–978Google Scholar
  49. Thaler RH, Johnson EJ (1999) Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Manag Sci 36(6):643–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D (1990) The causes of preference reversal. Am Econ Rev 80:204–217Google Scholar
  51. Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P (1988) Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychol Rev 95:371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 221:453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Studi Aziendali e GiusprivatisticiUniversità degli Studi di Bari, Aldo MoroBariItaly
  3. 3.Departament d’EconomiaUniversitat Jaune ICastellónSpain

Personalised recommendations