Advertisement

Dynamic Insurance Decision-Making for Rare Events: The Role of Emotions

Article
  • 85 Downloads

Abstract

This paper describes the results of a web-based experiment that uses respondents’ stated preferences for purchasing insurance for low-probability, high-consequence events where the probability of a loss and its consequences are stable over time. We contrast the predictions of a model of insurance choice based on expected utility [E(U)] maximisation with those of an alternative behavioural model. The majority of subjects reported insurance purchasing behaviour consistent with expected utility theory; however, a sizeable number of uninsured individuals decided to purchase insurance after learning that they had suffered a loss whereby they responded that their prior choice to be uninsured made them unhappy. In this sense, the study shows that a loss coupled with self-reported emotions linked to the loss is likely to play an important role in convincing some uninsured persons to buy coverage. In contrast, insured individuals who did not suffer a loss rarely dropped coverage.

Keywords

individual decision-making role of emotions choice under uncertainty insurance disasters 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the referees for helpful feedback on this paper. Sergeant Shriver and John Sperger provided excellent research assistance. Support for this research comes from the Travelers-Wharton Partnership for Risk Management Fund, the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) at the University of Southern California, the Zurich Insurance Foundation, and the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center project on “Managing and Financing Extreme Events.”

References

  1. Bell, D. (1982) ‘Regret in decision making under uncertainty’, Operations Research 30(5): 961–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernheim, B.D. and Rangel, A. (2009) ‘Beyond revealed preference: Choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(1): 51–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bottom, W., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. and Murnighan, J.K. (2002) ‘When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation’, Organizational Science 13(5): 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, M. and Muermann, A. (2004) ‘The impact of regret on the demand for insurance’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 71(4): 737–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Einav, L., Finkelstein, A., Pascu, I. and Cullen, M. (2012) ‘How general are risk preferences? Choices under uncertainty in different domains’, American Economic Review 102(6): 2606–2638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fehr-Duda, H., Gennaro M. and Schubert R. (2006) ‘Gender, financial risk, and probability weights,’ Theory and Decision 60(2): 283–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. and Johnson, S.M. (2000) ‘The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilovich, T. and Medvec, H. (1995) ‘The experience of regret: What, when and why’, Psychological Review 102(2): 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W. (2007) ‘Welfare without happiness’, The American Economic Review 97(2): 471–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hershey, J.C. and Schoemaker P.J.H. (1980) ‘Risk taking and problem context in the domain of losses: An expected utility analysis,’ The Journal of Risk and Insurance 47(1): 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hsee, C.K. and. Kunreuther H.C. (2000) ‘The affection effect in insurance decisions,’ Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20(2): 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jaspersen, J.G. (2016). ‘Hypothetical surveys and experimental studies of insurance demand: A review.’ The Journal of Risk and Insurance 83(1): 217–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  14. Kőszegi, B. and Rabin, M. (2007) ‘Mistakes in choice-based welfare analysis’, The American Economic Review 97(2): 477–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kunreuther, H., Ginsberg, R., Miller, L., Sagi, P., Slovic, P., Borkan, B. and Katz, N. (1978) Disaster Insurance Protection: Public Policy Lessons. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Kunreuther, H., Pauly, M.V. and McMorrow, S. (2013) Insurance and Behavioral Economics: Improving Decisions in the Most Misunderstood Industry. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kusev, P., van Schaik P., Ayton P., Dent J. and Chater N. (2009) ‘Exaggerated risk: Prospect theory and probability weighting in risky choice,’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35(6): 1487–1505.Google Scholar
  18. Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K. and Welch, N. (2001) ‘Risk as feelings’, Psychological Bulletin 127(2): 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1982) ‘Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty’, Economic Journal 92(368): 805–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lount, R., Zhong, C., Sivanathan, N. and Murnighan, J.K. (2008) ‘Getting off on the wrong foot: The timing of a breach and the restoration of trust’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34(12): 1601–1612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lypny, G.J. (1993) ‘An experimental study of managerial pay and firm hedging decisions,’ The Journal of Risk and Insurance 60(2): 208–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Madrian, B.C. and Shea, D.F. (2001) ‘The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and saving behavior,’ The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116(4): 1149–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyer, R. and Kunreuther, H. (2017) The Ostrich Paradox: Why We Underprepare for Disasters. Wharton Digital Press.Google Scholar
  24. Michel-Kerjan, E., Lemoyne de Forges, S. and Kunreuther, H. (2012) ‘Policy tenure under the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program’, Risk Analysis 32(4): 644–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neipp, J. and Zeckhauser, R. (1985) ‘Persistence in the choice of health plans’, Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research 6: 47–72.Google Scholar
  26. Oppenheimer, D., Meyvis, T. and Davidenko, N. (2009) ‘Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45(4): 867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shiller, R. (2003) The New Financial Order: Risk in the 21st Century, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2008) Nudge: The Gentle Power of Choice Architecture, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wagenaar, W. and Keren, G. (1988) ‘Chance and luck are not the same’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1(2): 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Operations, Information and Decisions, The Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Care Management, The Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations