Advertisement

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 141–159 | Cite as

The Affection Effect in Insurance Decisions

  • Christopher K. Hsee
  • Howard C. Kunreuther
Article

Abstract

We use insurance behavior as a context to study affective influences in seemingly purely monetary decisions. We report two related findings. First, people are more willing to purchase insurance for an object at stake, the more affection they have for the object, holding the amount of compensation constant. Second, if the object is damaged, people are also more willing to go through the trouble of claiming a fixed amount of compensation, the more affection they have for the object. These effects are not predicted by standard decision theories. We explain these findings by a “consolation hypothesis,” according to which, people perceive insurance compensation as a token of consolation, and we discuss its implications for affective influences in other types of decisions.

affect insurance consolation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baron, J., J. Hershey, and H. Kunreuther. in press. “Determinants of Priority for Risk Reduction: The Role of Worry, ” Risk analysis.Google Scholar
  2. Cook, P., and D. Graham. 1977. “Demand for Insurance and Protection: The Case of Irreplaceable Commodities, ” Quarterly Journal of Economics 91, 143–156.Google Scholar
  3. Finuciane, M. L., A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S. M. Johnson. 1998. “The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits, ” working paper, Decision Research.Google Scholar
  4. Hogarth, R. M., and H. Kunreuther. 1995. “Decision Making Under Ignorance: Arguing with Yourself, ” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 10, 15–36.Google Scholar
  5. Hsee, C. K. 1995. “Elastic Justification in Decision Making: How Task Irrelevant but Tempting Considerations Influence Decisions, ” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 62, 330–337.Google Scholar
  6. Hsee, C. K. 1996. “The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives, ” Organizational Beha¨ior and Human Decision Processes 67, 247–257.Google Scholar
  7. Hsee, C. K., G. F. Loewenstein, S. Blount, and M. H. Bazerman. 1999. “Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluation of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis, ” Psychological Bulletin 125, 576–590.Google Scholar
  8. Hsee, C. K. 1999. Decision as an Expression of Affection, manuscript in preparation. The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Hsee, C. K., and S. Menon. 1999. Affection Effect in Consumer Choices, unpublished data. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, E., J. Hershey, J. Meszaros, and H. Kunreuther. 1995. “Framing, Probability Distortions and Insurance Decisions, ” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 35–51.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D., I. Ritov, and D. Schkade. 1999. “Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions? An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues, ” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 19, 203–242.Google Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, ” Econometrica 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  13. Kunreuther, H., R. Hogarth and J. Meszaros. 1993. “Insurer Ambiguity and Market Failure. ” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 71–88.Google Scholar
  14. Kunreuther, H. 1996. “Mitigating Disaster Losses through Insurance, ” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 12, 171–187.Google Scholar
  15. Lichtenstein, S. and P. Slovic. 1971. “Reversal of Preferences between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions. ” Journal of Experimental Psychology 89, 46–55.Google Scholar
  16. Loewenstein, G. F., E. U. Weber, C. K. Hsee, and E. S. Welch. 1999. “Risk as Feelings, ” working paper.Google Scholar
  17. Loewenstein, G. 1996. “Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior, ” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65, 272–292.Google Scholar
  18. Loewenstein, G., and S. Issacharoff. 1994. “Source Dependence in the Valuation of Objects, ” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 7, 157–168.Google Scholar
  19. Luce, M. F., J. W. Payne, and J. R. Bettman. 1999. “Emotional trade-off difficulty and choice. ” Journal of Marketing Reseach 36, 143–159.Google Scholar
  20. Mellers, B. A., A. Schwartz, K. Ho, and I. Ritov. 1997. “Decision Affect Theory: Emotional Reactions to the Outcomes of Risky Options, ” Psychological Science 8, 423–429.Google Scholar
  21. Schade, C., and H. Kunreuther. 1999. “Worry and Warranties, ” Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Working Paper Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  22. Posner, R. 1977. Economic Analysis of Law 2nd ed.. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  23. Shafir, E., I. Simonson and A. Tversky. 1993. “Reason-based choice. ” Cognition 49, 11–36.Google Scholar
  24. Thaler, R. H. 1985. “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice, ” Marketing Science 4, 199–214.Google Scholar
  25. Thaler, R. H. 1990. “Saving, Fungibility and Mental Accounts, ” Journal of Economic Perspectives 4, 193–205.Google Scholar
  26. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, ” Science 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  27. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Rationality of Choice, ” Science 211, 453–458.Google Scholar
  28. Wakker, P. P., R. H. Thaler, and A. Tversky. 1997. “Probabilistic Insurance, ” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 15, 7–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher K. Hsee
    • 1
  • Howard C. Kunreuther
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of BusinessUniversity of ChicagoUSA
  2. 2.The Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations