IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/apjrin/v13y2019i2p15n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Widening the Gap between Hypothetical and Actual choices—Empirical Evidence from the Japanese Medical Insurance Market—

Author

Listed:
  • Fujii Yoichiro

    (School of Commerce, Meiji University, 1-1 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-kuTokyo 101-8301, Japan)

  • Inakura Noriko

    (Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University, 1-31 Machikaneyama, ToyonakaOsaka 560-0043, Japan)

Abstract

This study examines the consistency in risk aversion between hypothetical and actual choices in medical insurance. Utilizing a unique survey in which individuals in Japan are asked about their perception of a hypothetical necessary amount for hospitalization benefits and the actual insurance contract amount at the time of hospitalization, the study identifies that the gap between the hypothetical and actual domains is not constant. Even between two similar domains of hospital benefits selection, the gap is found to vary depending on respondents’ anxiety about future medical expenses, their level of financial literacy, and other personal attributes such as age and occupation. The results of this study strongly suggest a need for exercising caution when using the degree of risk aversion obtained by hypothetical questions, questionnaire surveys, and experiments to predict actual behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Fujii Yoichiro & Inakura Noriko, 2019. "Factors Widening the Gap between Hypothetical and Actual choices—Empirical Evidence from the Japanese Medical Insurance Market—," Asia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance, De Gruyter, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:apjrin:v:13:y:2019:i:2:p:15:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/apjri-2018-0026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/apjri-2018-0026
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/apjri-2018-0026?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2010. "Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 1238-1260, June.
    2. Bellemare, Charles & Shearer, Bruce, 2010. "Sorting, incentives and risk preferences: Evidence from a field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(3), pages 345-348, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    5. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2016. "A comparison of hypothetical risk attitude elicitation instruments for explaining farmer crop insurance purchases," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(1), pages 113-135.
    6. Levon Barseghyan & Jeffrey Prince & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2011. "Are Risk Preferences Stable across Contexts? Evidence from Insurance Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 591-631, April.
    7. Pierre‐André Chiappori & Monica Paiella, 2011. "Relative Risk Aversion Is Constant: Evidence From Panel Data," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(6), pages 1021-1052, December.
    8. Tore Ellingsen & Magnus Johannesson, 2008. "Pride and Prejudice: The Human Side of Incentive Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 990-1008, June.
    9. Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Insurance Demand Under Prospect Theory: A Graphical Analysis," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 77-89, January.
    10. Matthew Rabin & Richard H. Thaler, 2013. "Anomalies: Risk aversion," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 27, pages 467-480, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Iuliana Pascu & Mark R. Cullen, 2012. "How General Are Risk Preferences? Choices under Uncertainty in Different Domains," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2606-2638, October.
    12. Wolf, Charles & Pohlman, Larry, 1983. "The Recovery of Risk Preferences from Actual Choices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(3), pages 843-850, May.
    13. Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
    14. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, 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. Li Donni, P., 2010. "Risk Preference Heterogeneity And Multiple Demand For Insurance," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 10/17, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    2. Lönnqvist, Jan-Erik & Verkasalo, Markku & Walkowitz, Gari & Wichardt, Philipp C., 2015. "Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: Task or ask? An empirical comparison," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 254-266.
    3. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    4. 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.
    5. Wölbert, E.M. & Riedl, A.M., 2013. "Measuring time and risk preferences: Reliability, stability, domain specificity," Research Memorandum 041, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    6. Yating Chuang & John Chung-En Liu, 2020. "Who wears a mask? Gender differences in risk behaviors in the COVID-19 early days in Taiwan," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(4), pages 2619-2627.
    7. Almlund, Mathilde & Duckworth, Angela Lee & Heckman, James & Kautz, Tim, 2011. "Personality Psychology and Economics," Handbook of the Economics of Education, in: Erik Hanushek & Stephen Machin & Ludger Woessmann (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Education, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 1-181, Elsevier.
    8. Filippin, Antonio & Crosetto, Paolo, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," IZA Discussion Papers 8184, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini & van der Pol, Marjon, 2016. "Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    10. Boschini, Anne & Dreber, Anna & von Essen, Emma & Muren, Astri & Ranehill, Eva, 2014. "Gender and economic preferences in a large random sample," Research Papers in Economics 2014:6, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    11. Jean-Louis Bago & Bruce Shearer, 2022. "Risk preferences and contract choices," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(5), pages 1374-1398, November.
    12. Jeroen Hinloopen & Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2020. "(Non‐)Insurance Markets, Loss Size Manipulation and Competition: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(4), pages 819-856, December.
    13. Carole Treibich, 2015. "Are Survey Risk Aversion Measurements Adequate in a Low Income Context?," AMSE Working Papers 1517, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    14. Steffen Brenner, 2015. "The Risk Preferences of U.S. Executives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1344-1361, June.
    15. Rosburg, Alicia & Menapace, Luisa, 2018. "Factors Influencing Corn Fungicide Treatment Decisions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(2), May.
    16. Pan He & Marcella Veronesi & Stefanie Engel, 2016. "Consistency of Risk Preference Measures and the Role of Ambiguity: An Artefactual Field Experiment from China," Working Papers 03/2016, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    17. Fezzi, Carlo & Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2021. "Estimating risk preferences integrating insurance choices with subjective beliefs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    18. Jianjun Jin & Rui He & Haozhou Gong & Xia Xu & Chunyang He, 2017. "Farmers’ Risk Preferences in Rural China: Measurements and Determinants," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-11, June.
    19. Daniel Paravisini & Veronica Rappoport & Enrichetta Ravina, 2017. "Risk Aversion and Wealth: Evidence from Person-to-Person Lending Portfolios," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 279-297, February.
    20. Jonathan P. Beauchamp & David Cesarini & Magnus Johannesson, 2017. "The psychometric and empirical properties of measures of risk preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 203-237, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    context-dependence; consistency in risk aversion; hospitalization benefit; financial literacy; hypothetical choice;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • I13 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Insurance, Public and Private

    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:bpj:apjrin:v:13:y:2019:i:2:p:15:n:2. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.