IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i17p9528-d620879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing and Validating a Behavioural Model of Cyberinsurance Adoption

Author

Listed:
  • Dawn Branley-Bell

    (Department of Psychology, School of Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK)

  • Yolanda Gómez

    (DevStat, 46005 Valencia, Spain)

  • Lynne Coventry

    (Department of Psychology, School of Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK)

  • José Vila

    (DevStat, 46005 Valencia, Spain
    Intelligent Data Analysis Laboratory (IDAL), Center for Research in Social and Economic Behavior (ERI-CES), University of Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

  • Pam Briggs

    (Department of Psychology, School of Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK)

Abstract

Business disruption from cyberattacks is a growing concern, yet cyberinsurance uptake remains low. Using an online behavioural economics experiment with 4800 participants across four EU countries, this study tests a predictive model of cyberinsurance adoption, incorporating elements of Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) as well as factors in relation to risk propensity and price. During the experiment, participants were given the opportunity to purchase different cybersecurity measures and cyberinsurance products before performing an online task. Participants likelihood of suffering a cyberattack was dependent upon their adoption of cybersecurity measures and their behaviour during the online task. The consequences of any attack were dependent upon the participants insurance decisions. Structural equation modelling was applied and the model was further developed to include elements of the wider security ecosystem. The final model shows that all TPB factors, and response efficacy from the PMT, positively predicted adoption of premium cyberinsurance. Interestingly, adoption of cybersecurity measures was associated with safer behaviour online, contrary to concerns of “moral hazard”. The findings highlight the need to consider the larger cybersecurity ecosystem when designing interventions to increase adoption of cyberinsurance and/or promote more secure online behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Dawn Branley-Bell & Yolanda Gómez & Lynne Coventry & José Vila & Pam Briggs, 2021. "Developing and Validating a Behavioural Model of Cyberinsurance Adoption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9528-:d:620879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9528/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9528/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre, Aurélie & Jusot, Florence, 2017. "The likely effects of employer-mandated complementary health insurance on health coverage in France," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 321-328.
    2. Ruth Dittrich & Anita Wreford & Adam Butler & Dominic Moran, 2016. "The impact of flood action groups on the uptake of flood management measures," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 471-489, October.
    3. Alma Cohen & Peter Siegelman, 2010. "Testing for Adverse Selection in Insurance Markets," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 77(1), pages 39-84, March.
    4. Robert B. Barsky & F. Thomas Juster & Miles S. Kimball & Matthew D. Shapiro, 1997. "Preference Parameters and Behavioral Heterogeneity: An Experimental Approach in the Health and Retirement Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 537-579.
    5. Benedikt Lebek & Jörg Uffen & Markus Neumann & Bernd Hohler & Michael H. Breitner, 2014. "Information security awareness and behavior: a theory-based literature review," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 37(12), pages 1049-1092, November.
    6. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:33-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    9. Botzen, W.J.W. & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2012. "Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 151-166.
    10. Mol, Jantsje M. & Botzen, W.J. Wouter & Blasch, Julia E., 2020. "Behavioral motivations for self-insurance under different disaster risk insurance schemes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 967-991.
    11. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emilio Soria-Olivas & Jos'e E. Vila Gisbert & Regino Barranquero Carde~nosa & Yolanda Gomez, 2022. "Integration of Behavioral Economic Models to Optimize ML performance and interpretability: a sandbox example," Papers 2205.01387, arXiv.org.
    2. Chih-Hsiung Chang, 2022. "Information Asymmetry and Card Debt Crisis in Taiwan," Bulletin of Applied Economics, Risk Market Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 123-145.
    3. Alfiero, Simona & Battisti, Enrico & Ηadjielias, Elias, 2022. "Black box technology, usage-based insurance, and prediction of purchase behavior: Evidence from the auto insurance sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Kuzubaş, Tolga U. & Saltoğlu, Burak, 2017. "Measures of individual risk attitudes and portfolio choice: Evidence from pension participants," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 186-203.
    3. 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.
    4. Adachi, Daisuke & Nakata, Hiroyuki & Sawada, Yasuyuki & Sekiguchi, Kunio, 2023. "Adverse selection and moral hazard in corporate insurance markets: Evidence from the 2011 Thailand floods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 376-386.
    5. Joshua Tasoff & Wenjie Zhang, 2022. "The Performance of Time-Preference and Risk-Preference Measures in Surveys," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1149-1173, February.
    6. 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.
    7. April Bernard & Osaretin Iyare & Winston Moore, 2008. "Individual Risk Propensity and Risk Background," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(3), pages 53-70, December.
    8. Carole Treibich, 2015. "Are Survey Risk Aversion Measurements Adequate in a Low Income Context?," AMSE Working Papers 1517, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    9. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2016. "A theoretical and experimental appraisal of four risk elicitation methods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 613-641, September.
    10. Osberghaus, Daniel & Botzen, Wouter & Kesternich, Martin & Iurkova, Ekaterina, 2022. "The Intention-Behavior Gap in Climate Change Adaptation," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264073, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Thomas, Ranjeeta & Galizzi, Matteo M. & Moorhouse, Louisa & Nyamukapa, Constance & Hallett, Timothy B., 2024. "Do risk, time and prosocial preferences predict risky sexual behaviour of youths in a low-income, high-risk setting?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    12. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Machado, Sara R. & Miniaci, Raffaele, 2016. "Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67554, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Aurélie Pierre & Florence Jusot & Denis Raynaud & Carine Franc, 2018. "Généralisation de la complémentaire santé d’entreprise. Une évaluation ex ante des gains et des pertes de bien-être," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(3), pages 407-441.
    14. Janko Gorter & Paul Schilp, 2012. "Risk preferences over small stakes: Evidence from deductible choice," DNB Working Papers 338, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.
    15. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    16. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    17. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    18. Fossen, Frank M. & Glocker, Daniela, 2017. "Stated and revealed heterogeneous risk preferences in educational choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-25.
    19. Lex Borghans & Angela Lee Duckworth & James J. Heckman & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    20. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9528-:d:620879. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.