Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ambiguity Aversion in the Field of Insurance: Insurers’ Attitude to Imprecise and Conflicting Probability Estimates

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents the results of a survey designed to test, with economically sophisticated participants, Ellsberg’s ambiguity aversion hypothesis, and Smithson’s conflict aversion hypothesis. Based on an original sample of 78 professional actuaries (all members of the French Institute of Actuaries), this article provides empirical evidence that ambiguity (i.e. uncertainty about the probability) affect insurers’ decision on pricing insurance. It first reveals that premiums are significantly higher for risks when there is ambiguity regarding the probability of the loss. Second, it shows that insurers are sensitive to sources of ambiguity. The participants indeed, charged a higher premium when ambiguity came from conflict and disagreement regarding the probability of the loss than when ambiguity came from imprecision (imprecise forecast about the probability of the loss). This research thus documents the presence of both ambiguity aversion and conflict aversion in the field of insurance, and discuses economic and psychological rationales for the observed behaviours.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Becker S., Brownson F. (1964) What price ambiguity? or the role of ambiguity in decision-making. The Journal of Political Economy 72: 2–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Budescu D., Kuhn K., Kramer K., Johnson T. (2002) Modeling certainty equivalents for imprecise gambles. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88: 748–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budescu, D. and Wallsten, T. (1995), Processing linguistic probabilities: general principles and empirical evidence. In Busemeyer J., Hastie R. and Medin D.L. (eds.), Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 275–318.

  • Budner S. (1962) Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality 30: 29–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabantous, L., Hilton D., Shanteau, J. (2004) Ambiguity and conflict aversion: an attributional explanation for confidence in one’s judgment. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Judgement and Decision Making (SJDM) Minneapolis, US, November 19–22.

  • Camerer C., Weber M. (1992) Recent developments in modelling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 325–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesson H., Viscusi W.K. (2003) Commonalities in time and ambiguity aversion for long-term risks. Theory and Decision 54: 57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen M., Jaffray J.-Y., Said T. (1985) Individual behavior under risk and uncertainty: an experimental study. Theory and Decision 18: 203–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen M., Jaffray J.-Y., Said T. (1987) Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curley S., Yates F. (1985) The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36: 272–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Marcellis, N. (2000) Aux frontières de l’assurabilité des risques de l’entreprise, une analyse expérimentale des décisions de l’assureur. Thèse de doctorat en gestion.

  • Du N., Budescu D. (2005) The effects of imprecise probabilities and outcomes in evaluating investment option. Management Science 51(12):1791–1803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg D. (1961) Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 75: 643–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox G., Tversky A. (1995) Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 585–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox G., Weber M. (2002) Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance and decision context. Organizational Behavior and Human and Decision Processes 88(1):476–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosh D., Ray M. (1992) Risk attitude, ambiguity intolerance and decision making: an exploratory investigation. Decision Science 23(2):431–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosh D., Ray M. (1997) Risk, ambiguity and decision choice: some additional evidences. Decision Science 28(1):81–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath C., Tversky A. (1991) Preference and belief: ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4: 5–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton D.J., Smith R.H., Kim S.-H. (1995) Processes of causal explanation and dispositional attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68(3):377–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho J., Keller L., Keltyka P. (2002) Effects of outcome and probabilistic ambiguity on managerial choices. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24(1):47–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth R., Kunreuther H. (1989) Risk, ambiguity and insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2: 5–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther H., Meszaros J. Hogarth R., Spranca M. (1995) Ambiguity and underwriter decision processes. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 26: 337–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauriola M., Levin I. (2001) Relating individual differences in attitude toward ambiguity to risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 14: 107–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maffioletti A., Santoni M. (2005) Do trade union leaders violate subjective expected utility? some insights from experimental data. Theory and Decision 59(3):207–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage L. (1954) The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman R. (1974) The psychological difference between ambiguity and risk. Quarterly Journal of Economics 88: 166–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanteau, J. (1992) Competence in experts: the role of task Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53(2) 252–266 (Special issue on Experts and Expert Systems).

  • Shanteau, J. (2001) What does it mean when expert disagree? In Salas, E., Klein, G. (eds.). Linking Expertise and Naturalistic Decision Making. NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Shanteau, J., and Stewart, T.R. (1992) Why study expert decision making? Some historical perspectives and comments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 53(2) 95–106 (Special issue on Experts and Expert Systems).

  • Smithson M. (1999) Conflict aversion: preference for ambiguity vs conflict in sources and evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 79(3):179–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor K. (1995) Testing credit and blame attributions as explanation for choices under ambiguity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64(2):128–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi K., Chesson H. (1999) Hopes and fears: the conflicting effects of risk ambiguity. Theory and Decision 47: 153–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leeds University Business School, Leeds University, LS2 9JT, Leeds, UK

    Laure Cabantous

Authors
  1. Laure Cabantous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laure Cabantous.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cabantous, L. Ambiguity Aversion in the Field of Insurance: Insurers’ Attitude to Imprecise and Conflicting Probability Estimates. Theor Decis 62, 219–240 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-006-9015-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-006-9015-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation