Behavioral bias and the demand for bicycle and flood insurance
- 1.1k Downloads
With data from an insurer that provides coverage for both a low probability, high consequence (LPHC) risk (the flood peril) and a high probability, low consequence (HPLC) risk (bicycle theft), we investigate behavioral bias in the demand for insurance. Our analysis provides evidence which is consistent with a preference for insurance for HPLC risks over LPHC risks: we find that many more policyholders purchase add-on coverage to their homeowner’s insurance to cover the risk of bicycle theft than to cover the risk of loss due to flooding. In addition, we find mixed evidence on whether policyholders’ insurance coverage decisions are responsive to changes in their risk exposure. We find a strong relationship between wealth and the demand for both types of coverage.
KeywordsDecision making under risk Risk assessment Insurance demand
JEL ClassificationsD81 D83 D84
- Bauer, H. H., Sauer, N. E., & Brugger, N. (2002). Die Akzeptanz von Versicherungsdienstleistungen im Internet. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Versicherungswissenschaft, 91(3), 329–363.Google Scholar
- Federal Statistical Office. (2009). Deutschland – Land und Leute. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
- GDV. (2014). ZÜRS. Available online at: http://www.gdv.de/2008/08/geo-informationssystem-zuers-geo-zonierungssystem-fuer-ueberschwemmungsrisiko-und-einschaetzung-von-umweltrisiken/.
- Greene, W. H. (1996). Marginal effects in the bivariate probit model. SSRN Working Paper 1293106.Google Scholar
- Nichols, A., & Schaffer, M. E. (2007). Clustered standard errors in Stata. Available online at http://repec.org/usug2007/crse.pdf.
- Pfeifer, C. (2011). Risk aversion and sorting into public sector employment. German Economic Review, 12(1), 85–99.Google Scholar
- Pohl, R. (2004). Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Sydnor, J. (2010). (Over)insuring modest risks. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(4), 177–199.Google Scholar