IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jrinsu/v89y2022i4p1077-1107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Insurance demand experiments: Comparing crowdworking to the lab

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes G. Jaspersen
  • Marc A. Ragin
  • Justin R. Sydnor

Abstract

We analyze an insurance demand experiment conducted in two different settings: in‐person at a university laboratory and online using a crowdworking platform. Subject demographics differ across the samples, but average insurance demand is similar. However, choice patterns suggest online subjects are less cognitively engaged—they have more variation in their demand and react less to changes in exogenous factors of the insurance situation. Applying data quality filters does not lead to more comparable demand patterns between the samples. Additionally, while online subjects pass comprehension questions at the same rate as in‐person subjects, they show more random behavior in other questions. We find that online subjects are more likely to engage in “coarse thinking,” choosing from a reduced set of options. Our results justify caution in using crowdsourced subjects for insurance demand experiments. We outline some best practices which may help improve data quality from experiments conducted via crowdworking platforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2022. "Insurance demand experiments: Comparing crowdworking to the lab," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1077-1107, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jrinsu:v:89:y:2022:i:4:p:1077-1107
    DOI: 10.1111/jori.12402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jori.12402
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jori.12402?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2015. "Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 251-283, June.
    2. Zhi Li & Po-Hsuan Lin & Si-Yuan Kong & Dongwu Wang & John Duffy, 2021. "Conducting large, repeated, multi-game economic experiments using mobile platforms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-18, April.
    3. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00984211 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Dorra Riahi & Louis Levy-Garboua & Claude Montmarquette, 2013. "Competitive Insurance Markets and Adverse Selection in the Lab," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 38(1), pages 87-113, March.
    5. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    6. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2020. "Linking subjective and incentivized risk attitudes: The importance of losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 187-206, April.
    7. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    8. Brice Corgnet & Mark Desantis & David Porter, 2018. "What Makes a Good Trader? On the Role of Intuition and Reflection on Trader Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(3), pages 1113-1137, June.
    9. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    10. Levon Barseghyan & Maura Coughlin & Francesca Molinari & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2021. "Heterogeneous Choice Sets and Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2015-2048, September.
    11. Anja Zimmer & Helmut Gründl & Christian D. Schade & Franca Glenzer, 2018. "An Incentive†Compatible Experiment on Probabilistic Insurance and Implications for an Insurer's Solvency Level," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 85(1), pages 245-273, March.
    12. Matthew J C Crump & John V McDonnell & Todd M Gureckis, 2013. "Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
    13. Peilu Zhang & Marco A. Palma, 2021. "Compulsory Versus Voluntary Insurance: An Online Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 106-125, January.
    14. David Johnson & John Barry Ryan, 2020. "Amazon Mechanical Turk workers can provide consistent and economically meaningful data," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(1), pages 369-385, July.
    15. Osberghaus, Daniel & Reif, Christiane, 2021. "How do different compensation schemes and loss experience affect insurance decisions? Experimental evidence from two independent and heterogeneous samples," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    16. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    17. Annamaria Lusardi & Olivia Mitchell, 2007. "Financial Literacy and Retirement Planning: New Evidence from the Rand American Life Panel," Working Papers wp157, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    18. Jose Miguel Abito & Yuval Salant, 2019. "The Effect of Product Misperception on Economic Outcomes: Evidence from the Extended Warranty Market," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(6), pages 2285-2318.
    19. Brice Corgnet & Mark Desantis & David Porter, 2018. "What Makes a Good Trader? On the Role of Reflection and Intuition on Trader Performance," Post-Print hal-02312062, HAL.
    20. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    21. Powell, Melanie & Ansic, David, 1997. "Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 605-628, November.
    22. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Alexander Ritschel, 2022. "Attention and salience in preference reversals," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 1024-1051, June.
    23. Stefano DellaVigna & Devin Pope, 2022. "Stability of Experimental Results: Forecasts and Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 889-925, August.
    24. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean, 2015. "Revealed Preference, Rational Inattention, and Costly Information Acquisition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2183-2203, July.
    25. Ofra Amir & David G Rand & Ya'akov Kobi Gal, 2012. "Economic Games on the Internet: The Effect of $1 Stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-4, February.
    26. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    27. repec:hal:pseose:hal-00756620 is not listed on IDEAS
    28. Botond Koszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1047-1073, September.
    29. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:2:p:90-103 is not listed on IDEAS
    30. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2022. "Predicting insurance demand from risk attitudes," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 63-96, March.
    31. Michelle Sovinsky Goeree, 2008. "Limited Information and Advertising in the U.S. Personal Computer Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(5), pages 1017-1074, September.
    32. Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2016. "Hypothetical Surveys And Experimental Studies Of Insurance Demand: A Review," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 217-255, January.
    33. Coppock, Alexander, 2019. "Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 613-628, July.
    34. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    35. Yun Shin Lee & Yong Won Seo & Enno Siemsen, 2018. "Running Behavioral Operations Experiments Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 27(5), pages 973-989, May.
    36. Saurabh Bhargava & George Loewenstein & Justin Sydnor, 2017. "Choose to Lose: Health Plan Choices from a Menu with Dominated Option," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(3), pages 1319-1372.
    37. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    38. Susan Laury & Melayne McInnes & J. Swarthout, 2009. "Insurance decisions for low-probability losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 17-44, August.
    39. Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2021. "Testing the Waters: Behavior across Participant Pools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(2), pages 687-719, February.
    40. Vickie Bajtelsmit & Jennifer Coats & Paul Thistle, 2015. "The effect of ambiguity on risk management choices: An experimental study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 249-280, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pin, Paolo & Rotesi, Tiziano, 2023. "App-based experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Sébastien Duchêne & Adrien Nguyen-Huu & Dimitri Dubois & Marc Willinger, 2022. "Risk-return trade-offs in the context of environmental impact: a lab-in-the-field experiment with finance professionals," CEE-M Working Papers hal-03883121, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    3. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Richard Peter & Marc A. Ragin, 2023. "Probability weighting and insurance demand in a unified framework," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 48(1), pages 63-109, March.
    4. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    5. Marc A. Ragin & Benjamin L. Collier & Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2021. "The effect of information disclosure on demand for high‐load insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 88(1), pages 161-193, March.
    6. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    7. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1157, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    8. Schwaiger, Rene & Hueber, Laura, 2021. "Do MTurkers exhibit myopic loss aversion?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    9. Strobl, Renate, 2022. "Background risk, insurance and investment behaviour: Experimental evidence from Kenya," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 34-68.
    10. Sébastien Duchêne & Adrien Nguyen-Huu & Dimitri Dubois & Marc Willinger, 2021. "Why finance professionals hold green and brown assets? A lab-in-the-field experiment [Pourquoi investir dans le vert et le brun ? Une expérience sur des professionnels de la finance]," Working Papers hal-03285376, HAL.
    11. Gibson, John & Johnson, David, 2018. "The Economic Relevancy of Risk Preferences Elicited Online and With Low Stakes," MPRA Paper 87231, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Colasante, Annarita & Riccetti, Luca, 2020. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: It is a matter of gap between moments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    13. Buchanan, Joy A., 2020. "My reference point, not yours," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 297-311.
    14. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    15. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Luhan, Wolfgang J., 2015. "Am I my Peer's Keeper? Social Responsibility in Financial Decision Making," Ruhr Economic Papers 551, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    16. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    18. Ronayne, David & Sgroi, Daniel & Tuckwell, Anthony, 2021. "Evaluating the sunk cost effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 318-327.
    19. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    20. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jrinsu:v:89:y:2022:i:4:p:1077-1107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ariaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.