IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v34y2023i1p363-382.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When More Can Be Less: The Effect of Add-On Insurance on the Consumption of Professional Services

Author

Listed:
  • Hongfei Li

    (CUHK Business School, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)

  • Jing Peng

    (School of Business, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269)

  • Xinxin Li

    (School of Business, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269)

  • Jan Stallaert

    (School of Business, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269)

Abstract

The emergence of online platforms for professional services (e.g., cosmetic procedures) represents a natural progression of e-commerce from search and experience goods to credence goods. Because of the deeply consequential nature of professional services and the large information asymmetries between customers and service providers, designing effective risk-reduction strategies is crucial for facilitating digital transactions of professional services. In this paper, we study whether and how the introduction of a novel risk-reduction strategy, the add-on insurance covering the potential cost of negative consequences (e.g., complications and unsatisfactory outcomes), affects the demand for professional services in online platforms. We leverage a policy change in an online platform for cosmetic procedures, which started to offer the add-on insurance for a subset of cosmetic procedures in 2016. Our empirical analysis shows that this risk-reduction strategy has asymmetric effects on low- and high-risk procedures. Specifically, the introduction of insurance increases the sales of low-risk procedures, but not those of high-risk ones. More importantly, the insurance has a negative spillover effect on uninsured competitors of insured procedures, regardless of their risk levels. The negative spillover effect of insurance on high-risk procedures is noteworthy because it hurts the sales of their uninsured competitors without increasing their own sales, suggesting that the negative spillover effect goes beyond the typical demand cannibalization explanation and can decrease the overall demand for high-risk procedures. We further corroborate our findings and investigate the mechanisms behind the asymmetric treatment effects and the negative spillover effect using an online controlled experiment. Our findings have important implications for platforms to design, deploy, and evaluate their risk-reduction strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongfei Li & Jing Peng & Xinxin Li & Jan Stallaert, 2023. "When More Can Be Less: The Effect of Add-On Insurance on the Consumption of Professional Services," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 363-382, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:34:y:2023:i:1:p:363-382
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2022.1129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.1129
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2022.1129?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. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Stephen P. Ryan & Paul Schrimpf & Mark R. Cullen, 2013. "Selection on Moral Hazard in Health Insurance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 178-219, February.
    2. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    3. Susan F. Lu & Huaxia Rui, 2018. "Can We Trust Online Physician Ratings? Evidence from Cardiac Surgeons in Florida," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2557-2573, June.
    4. Eric T. Anderson & Karsten Hansen & Duncan Simester, 2009. "The Option Value of Returns: Theory and Empirical Evidence," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 405-423, 05-06.
    5. Xinxin Li & Lorin M. Hitt, 2008. "Self-Selection and Information Role of Online Product Reviews," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 456-474, December.
    6. Ashley L. Buchanan & Michael G. Hudgens & Stephen R. Cole & Katie R. Mollan & Paul E. Sax & Eric S. Daar & Adaora A. Adimora & Joseph J. Eron & Michael J. Mugavero, 2018. "Generalizing evidence from randomized trials using inverse probability of sampling weights," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(4), pages 1193-1209, October.
    7. Alberto Abadie, 2005. "Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19.
    8. 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..
    9. Nitin Mehta & Jian Ni & Kannan Srinivasan & Baohong Sun, 2017. "A Dynamic Model of Health Insurance Choices and Healthcare Consumption Decisions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 338-360, May.
    10. Zhijie Lin & Ying Zhang & Yong Tan, 2019. "An Empirical Study of Free Product Sampling and Rating Bias," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 260-275, March.
    11. Robert Eisner & Robert H. Strotz, 1961. "Flight Insurance and the Theory of Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69(4), pages 355-355.
    12. Bruce G. S. Hardie & Eric J. Johnson & Peter S. Fader, 1993. "Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 378-394.
    13. Pei-Yu Chen & Yili Hong & Ying Liu, 2018. "The Value of Multidimensional Rating Systems: Evidence from a Natural Experiment and Randomized Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4629-4647, October.
    14. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    15. Jinyang Zheng & Zhengling Qi & Yifan Dou & Yong Tan, 2019. "How Mega Is the Mega? Exploring the Spillover Effects of WeChat Using Graphical Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1343-1362, December.
    16. Dawes, John G., 2012. "Brand-Pack Size Cannibalization Arising from Temporary Price Promotions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 343-355.
    17. Inyoung Chae & Andrew T. Stephen & Yakov Bart & Dai Yao, 2017. "Spillover Effects in Seeded Word-of-Mouth Marketing Campaigns," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 89-104, January.
    18. Pranav Jindal, 2015. "Risk Preferences and Demand Drivers of Extended Warranties," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 39-58, January.
    19. Chen Liang & Zhan (Michael) Shi & T. S. Raghu, 2019. "The Spillover of Spotlight: Platform Recommendation in the Mobile App Market," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1296-1318, December.
    20. Hoyer, Wayne D & Brown, Steven P, 1990. "Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat-Purchase Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(2), pages 141-148, September.
    21. Haris Krijestorac & Rajiv Garg & Vijay Mahajan, 2020. "Cross-Platform Spillover Effects in Consumption of Viral Content: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis Using Synthetic Controls," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 449-472, 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. Mi Hyun Lee & Sang Pil Han & Sungho Park & Wonseok Oh, 2023. "Positive Demand Spillover of Popular App Adoption: Implications for Platform Owners’ Management of Complements," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 961-995, September.
    2. Genakos, Christos & Roumanias, Costas & Valletti, Tommaso, 2023. "Is having an expert “friend” enough? An analysis of consumer switching behavior in mobile telephony," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 359-372.
    3. Nicola Lacetera & Claudio A. Piga & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2021. "Sticky Price for Declining Risk? Business Strategies with “Behavioral” Customers in the Hotel Industry," NBER Working Papers 28456, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Becker-Peth, Michael & Thonemann, Ulrich W., 2016. "Reference points in revenue sharing contracts—How to design optimal supply chain contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1033-1049.
    5. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    6. Ralf Elbert & Lowis Seikowsky, 2017. "The influences of behavioral biases, barriers and facilitators on the willingness of forwarders’ decision makers to modal shift from unimodal road freight transport to intermodal road–rail freight tra," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1083-1123, November.
    7. Cadsby, C. Bram & Song, Fei & Zubanov, Nick, 2024. "Working more for more and working more for less: Labor supply in the gain and loss domains," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    9. Wilfred Amaldoss & Chuan He, 2018. "Reference-Dependent Utility, Product Variety, and Price Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4302-4316, September.
    10. Yue Guan & Yong Tan & Qiang Wei & Guoqing Chen, 2023. "When Images Backfire: The Effect of Customer-Generated Images on Product Rating Dynamics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1641-1663, December.
    11. Zhihua Li & Songfa Zhong, 2023. "Reference Dependence in Intertemporal Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(1), pages 475-490, January.
    12. Ahrens, Steffen & Pirschel, Inske & Snower, Dennis J., 2014. "A theory of price adjustment under loss aversion," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2014-065, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    13. Guo, Feiyu & Cao, Erbao, 2021. "Can reference points explain vaccine hesitancy? A new perspective on their formation and updating," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    14. Takanori Ida & Wenjie Wang, 2014. "A Field Experiment on Dynamic Electricity Pricing in Los Alamos:Opt-in Versus Opt-out," Discussion papers e-14-010, Graduate School of Economics Project Center, Kyoto University.
    15. M. Keith Chen & Venkat Lakshminarayanan & Laurie Santos, 2005. "The Evolution of Our Preferences: Evidence from Capuchin-Monkey Trading Behavior," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1524, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    16. Ahrens, Steffen & Pirschel, Inske & Snower, Dennis J., 2017. "A theory of price adjustment under loss aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 78-95.
    17. Pranav Jindal, 2015. "Risk Preferences and Demand Drivers of Extended Warranties," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 39-58, January.
    18. Tovar, Patricia, 2009. "The effects of loss aversion on trade policy: Theory and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 154-167, June.
    19. Jeffrey D. Shulman & Marcus Cunha & Julian K. Saint Clair, 2015. "Consumer Uncertainty and Purchase Decision Reversals: Theory and Evidence," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 590-605, July.
    20. Dmitri Kuksov & Kangkang Wang, 2014. "The Bright Side of Loss Aversion in Dynamic and Competitive Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 693-711, 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:inm:orisre:v:34:y:2023:i:1:p:363-382. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.