Skip to main content
Log in

Framing the decision to buy long-term care insurance: losses and gains in the context of statistical and narrative evidence

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Financial Services Marketing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rational models have difficulty explaining low levels of demand for long-term care insurance. We posit that insurers have framed the need for insurance in a manner that unintentionally promotes risk-seeking behavior (i.e., high probability loss frame), and that alternative frames can better promote willingness to insure. We further posit that emotional frames are more effective than rational risk frames in promoting willingness to pay. Survey evidence supports these hypotheses: emotional narrative frames are associated with greatest willingness to pay, and the high probability loss frame was associated with among the lowest average amounts willing to pay.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • America’s Health Insurance Plans and LifePlans, Inc. 2012. Who buys long-term care insurance in 20102011? A twenty-year study of buyers and non-buyers (in the Individual Market).

  • Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.R. and A. Finkelstein. 2004. The interaction of public and private insurance: Medicaid and the long-term care insurance market. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 10989.

  • Brown, J.R. and A. Finkelstein. 2007. Supply or demand: Why is the market for long-term care insurance so small? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 10782.

  • Brown, J.R., J.R. Kling, S. Mullainathan, and M.V. Wrobel. 2008. Why don’t people insure late life consumption? A framing explanation of the under-annuitization puzzle. American Economic Review 98(2): 304–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J.T., and R.E. Petty. 1982. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42(1): 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, J.A., B. Spillman, and E.J. Tell. 2010. Private financing of long term care: Market penetration and market potential. Paper presented at Academy Health ARM Conference, Boston, MA.

  • Davis, M.H. 1983. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44(1): 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, J.B., E. Das, and R. Vet. 2008. What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychology 27(1): 110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, R.E., R.S. Friedman, T.E. Higgins, A. Taylor, and J. Shah. 2001. Promotion and prevention experiences as a personality variable. Columbia: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, G., M. Stead, and J. Webb. 2004. Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and ethical reasons for concern. Psychology & Marketing 21(11): 961–986. doi:10.1002/mar.20043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, D.A., and J.C. Mowen. 2000. Psychological determinants of financial preparedness for retirement. The Gerontologist 40(6): 687–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I.L. 1967. Effects of fear arousal on attitude change: Recent developments in theory and experimental research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 3: 166–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39(4): 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. 2007. Retirement planning’s greatest gap: Funding long-term care. Lewis & Clark Law Review 11(407). https://ssrn.com/abstract=993179.

  • Kunreuther, H. 1978. Disaster insurance protection: Public policy lessons. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, K. 2000. Impossible selves? Challenges and strategies for encouraging individual long-term care planning. Oxford, OH: Scripps Gerontology Center, Miami University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merlis, M. 2003. Private long-term care insurance: Who should buy it and what should they buy? Washington, DC: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. http://www.kff.org/insurance/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=14370.

  • Norton, E. 2000. Long-term care. In Handbook of health economics, ed. AJ Culyer and JP Newhouse, Vol. 1, Ch. 17. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

  • O’Keefe, D.J., and J.D. Jensen. 2007. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication 12(7): 623–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly, M.V. 1990. The rational non-purchase of long-term-care insurance. Journal of Political Economy 98(1): 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, A.J., P. Salovey, C. Antone, K. Keough, and C. Drake Martin. 1993. The influence of message framing on health behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 29(5): 408–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salovey, P., T.R. Schneider, and A.M. Apanovitch. 2002. Message framing in the prevention and early detection of illness. In The persuasion handbook: Theory and practice, ed. J.P. Dillard, and M. Pfan, 391–406. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, F.A., and E.C. Norton. 1997. Adverse selection, bequests, crowding out, and private demand for insurance: Evidence from the long-term care insurance market. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 15(3): 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. 2010. The more who die, the less we care. In The irrational economist: Making decisions in a dangerous world, ed. P. Slovic, and E. Michel-Kerjan, 30–40. New York: Public Affairs Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, D.A., and G. Loewenstein. 2003. Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26(1): 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, D.A., G. Loewenstein, and P. Slovic. 2007. Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 102(2): 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strathman, A., F. Gleicher, D.S. Boninger, and C.S. Edwards. 1994. The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(4): 742–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Westendorp, P.H. 1976. NSS price sensitivity meter (PSM)—A new approach to study consumer perception of prices. In ESOMAR Congress (25th), 139–166, Venice.

  • Wiener, J.M., J. Tilly, and S.M. Goldenson. 2000. Federal and state initiatives to jump start the market for private long-term care insurance. The ElderLaw Journal 8(1): 57–99.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Pincus.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pincus, J., Hopewood, K. & Mills, R. Framing the decision to buy long-term care insurance: losses and gains in the context of statistical and narrative evidence. J Financ Serv Mark 22, 33–40 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-017-0019-4

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-017-0019-4

Keywords

Navigation