IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/expeco/v20y2017i4d10.1007_s10683-017-9513-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leaving the market or reducing the coverage? A model-based experimental analysis of the demand for insurance

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Corcos

    (CNRS, Université de Picardie)

  • François Pannequin

    (Université Paris-Saclay)

  • Claude Montmarquette

    (CIRANO, Université de Montréal)

Abstract

This study develops a theoretical, and experimental analysis addressing the issue of premium variations on the demand for insurance. Accounting for risk attitudes, our contribution disentangles the decision to buy insurance from the conditional demand (the non-null demand for insurance). Partially validating our theoretical predictions, our experimental results show that, when it has an effect, a non-massive increase in the premium (either in the unit price or the fixed cost) exclusively results in an exit from the insurance market (the risk lovers first, then the risk averters). Moreover, our study highlights a key feature of risk-seeking agents' behavior; they exhibit behavior consistent with gambling and opportunism rather than a lack of interest in insurance.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette, 2017. "Leaving the market or reducing the coverage? A model-based experimental analysis of the demand for insurance," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 836-859, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:20:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10683-017-9513-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10683-017-9513-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10683-017-9513-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10683-017-9513-8?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. Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy, 2009. "Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 199-228, March.
    2. Louis Lévy-Garboua & Hela Maafi & David Masclet & Antoine Terracol, 2012. "Risk aversion and framing effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 128-144, March.
    3. Richards, Timothy J., 2000. "A Two-Stage Model Of The Demand For Specialty Crop Insurance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-18, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Alma Cohen & Liran Einav, 2007. "Estimating Risk Preferences from Deductible Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 745-788, June.
    6. MOSSIN, Jan, 1968. "Aspects of rational insurance purchasing," LIDAM Reprints CORE 23, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. 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..
    8. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Neil Esho & Anatoly Kirievsky & Damian Ward & Ralf Zurbruegg, 2004. "Law and the Determinants of Property‐Casualty Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 71(2), pages 265-283, June.
    11. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    12. repec:hal:pseose:hal-00617673 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. L. Eeckhoudt & C. Gollier & H. Schlesinger, 2005. "Economic and financial decisions under risk," Post-Print hal-00325882, HAL.
    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. d’Albis, Hippolyte & Attanasi, Giuseppe & Thibault, Emmanuel, 2020. "An experimental test of the under-annuitization puzzle with smooth ambiguity and charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 694-717.
    2. François Pannequin & Anne Corcos, 2017. "Compulsory insurance and voluntary self-insurance: substitutes or complements? A matter of risk attitudes," Working Papers 2017-78, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    3. François Pannequin & Anne Corcos, 2023. "Risk Management and Public Policies: How prevention challenges monopolistic insurance markets," Documents de recherche 23-02, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.
    4. Pannequin, François & Corcos, Anne & Montmarquette, Claude, 2020. "Are insurance and self-insurance substitutes? An experimental approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 797-811.
    5. Mol, Jantsje M. & Botzen, W. J. Wouter & Blasch, Julia E., 2020. "Risk reduction in compulsory disaster insurance: Experimental evidence on moral hazard and financial incentives," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    6. François Pannequin & Anne Corcos, 2020. "Are compulsory insurance and self-insurance substitutes or complements? A matter of risk attitudes," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 45(1), pages 24-35, March.
    7. Claire Mouminoux & Jean-Louis Rullière & Stéphane Loisel, 2018. "Obfuscation and Honesty Experimental Evidence on Insurance Demand with Multiple Distribution Channels," Working Papers hal-01819522, HAL.
    8. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette,, 2017. "Measuring individual risk-attitudes: an experimental comparison between Holt & Laury measure and an insurance-choices-based procedure," Working Papers 2017-79, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    9. 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.

    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. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette, 2016. "Leaving the market or reducing the coverage?," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-26, CIRANO.
    2. Pannequin, François & Corcos, Anne & Montmarquette, Claude, 2020. "Are insurance and self-insurance substitutes? An experimental approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 797-811.
    3. 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.
    4. Ali E. Abbas & Il-Horn Hann, 2010. "Measuring Risk Aversion in a Name-Your-Own-Price Channel," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 123-136, March.
    5. Claire Mouminoux & Jean-Louis Rullière & Stéphane Loisel, 2018. "Obfuscation and Honesty Experimental Evidence on Insurance Demand with Multiple Distribution Channels," Working Papers hal-01819522, HAL.
    6. James C. Cox & Eike B. Kroll & Marcel Lichters & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt, 2019. "The St. Petersburg paradox despite risk-seeking preferences: an experimental study," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 27-44, April.
    7. Brunette, Marielle & Jacob, Julien, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 174-189.
    8. François Pannequin & Anne Corcos & Claude Montmarquette, 2016. "Behavioral foundations of the substitutability between insurance and self-insurance: An experimental study," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-12, CIRANO.
    9. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette, 2017. "Statistical Tests of the Demand for Insurance: An “All or Nothing” Decision," CIRANO Working Papers 2017s-07, CIRANO.
    10. Glenn W. Harrison & Jia Min Ng, 2019. "Behavioral insurance and economic theory: A literature review," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 133-182, July.
    11. Mark Browne & Verena Jaeger & Petra Steinorth, 2019. "The impact of economic conditions on individual and managerial risk taking," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 44(1), pages 27-53, March.
    12. Cavatorta, Elisa & Groom, Ben, 2014. "Preferences and Exposure to Shocks: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Palestine," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100592, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. Yang, Min-Hsien & Lu, Richard, 2022. "A Study on Revenue Insurance Buying for Custard Apple in Taiwan: Perspectives from Prospect Theory and Ambiguity Preference," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 10(2), April.
    14. M. Pelé & M. Broihanne & B. Thierry & J. Call & V. Dufour, 2014. "To bet or not to bet? Decision-making under risk in non-human primates," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 141-166, October.
    15. Mark Browne & Verena Jaeger & Petra Steinorth, 2019. "The impact of economic conditions on individual and managerial risk taking," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 44(1), pages 27-53, March.
    16. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette,, 2017. "Measuring individual risk-attitudes: an experimental comparison between Holt & Laury measure and an insurance-choices-based procedure," Working Papers 2017-79, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    17. Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2017. "Cooperating over losses and competing over gains: A social dilemma experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 329-348.
    18. Christoph Bühren & Thorben C. Kundt, 2013. "Worker or Shirker – Who Evades More Taxes? A Real Effort Experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201326, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    19. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    20. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Demand for insurance; Conditional demand; Decision to buy insurance; Risk attitude; Experimental study;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:kap:expeco:v:20:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10683-017-9513-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.