IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2411.18838.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Contrasting the optimal resource allocation to cybersecurity and cyber insurance using prospect theory versus expected utility theory

Author

Listed:
  • Chaitanya Joshi
  • Jinming Yang
  • Sergeja Slapnicar
  • Ryan K L Ko

Abstract

Protecting against cyber-threats is vital for every organization and can be done by investing in cybersecurity controls and purchasing cyber insurance. However, these are interlinked since insurance premiums could be reduced by investing more in cybersecurity controls. The expected utility theory and the prospect theory are two alternative theories explaining decision-making under risk and uncertainty, which can inform strategies for optimizing resource allocation. While the former is considered a rational approach, research has shown that most people make decisions consistent with the latter, including on insurance uptakes. We compare and contrast these two approaches to provide important insights into how the two approaches could lead to different optimal allocations resulting in differing risk exposure as well as financial costs. We introduce the concept of a risk curve and show that identifying the nature of the risk curve is a key step in deriving the optimal resource allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Chaitanya Joshi & Jinming Yang & Sergeja Slapnicar & Ryan K L Ko, 2024. "Contrasting the optimal resource allocation to cybersecurity and cyber insurance using prospect theory versus expected utility theory," Papers 2411.18838, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2411.18838
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.18838
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    2. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Ted O'Donoghue & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2013. "The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2499-2529, October.
    3. Hwang, In Do, 2021. "Prospect theory and insurance demand: Empirical evidence on the role of loss aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    4. Mark Browne & Christian Knoller & Andreas Richter, 2015. "Behavioral bias and the demand for bicycle and flood insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 141-160, April.
    5. Adrian Bruhin & Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2010. "Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1375-1412, July.
    6. 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..
    7. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    8. Cassandra R. Cole & Stephen G. Fier, 2021. "An Empirical Analysis of Insurer Participation in the U.S. Cyber Insurance Market," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 232-254, April.
    9. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    10. Pitthan, Francisco & De Witte, Kristof, 2021. "Puzzles of insurance demand and its biases: A survey on the role of behavioural biases and financial literacy on insurance demand," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    11. Jorge González-Ortega & Refik Soyer & David Ríos Insua & Fabrizio Ruggeri, 2021. "An Adversarial Risk Analysis Framework for Batch Acceptance Problems," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 25-40, March.
    12. Martin Eling & Michael McShane & Trung Nguyen, 2021. "Cyber risk management: History and future research directions," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 24(1), pages 93-125, March.
    13. Kamiya, Shinichi & Kang, Jun-Koo & Kim, Jungmin & Milidonis, Andreas & Stulz, René M., 2021. "Risk management, firm reputation, and the impact of successful cyberattacks on target firms," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(3), pages 719-749.
    14. David Rios Insua & Aitor Couce‐Vieira & Jose A. Rubio & Wolter Pieters & Katsiaryna Labunets & Daniel G. Rasines, 2021. "An Adversarial Risk Analysis Framework for Cybersecurity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 16-36, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    17. Justin Sydnor, 2010. "(Over)insuring Modest Risks," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 177-199, October.
    18. Muhammad Ejaz & Stephen Joe & Chaitanya Joshi, 2021. "Adversarial Risk Analysis for Auctions Using Mirror Equilibrium and Bayes Nash Equilibrium," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 185-202, September.
    19. Eling, Martin & Wirfs, Jan, 2019. "What are the actual costs of cyber risk events?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 1109-1119.
    20. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    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. Hwang, In Do, 2021. "Prospect theory and insurance demand: Empirical evidence on the role of loss aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. Hwang, In Do, 2024. "Behavioral aspects of household portfolio choice: Effects of loss aversion on life insurance uptake and savings," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 89(PA), pages 1029-1053.
    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. Doidge, Mary & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David A., 2018. "Farmers’ valuation of changes to crop insurance coverage level – a test of third generation prospect theory," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274478, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Lampe, Immanuel & Würtenberger, Daniel, 2020. "Loss aversion and the demand for index insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 678-693.
    6. Chi, Yichun & Zheng, Jiakun & Zhuang, Shengchao, 2022. "S-shaped narrow framing, skewness and the demand for insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 279-292.
    7. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Mats Köster, 2020. "Salience and Skewness Preferences [Risk-neutral Firms can Extract Unbounded Profits from Consumers with Prospect Theory Preferences]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(5), pages 2057-2107.
    8. Immanuel Lampe & Daniel Würtenberger, 2019. "Loss Aversion And The Demand For Index Insurance," Working Papers on Finance 1907, University of St. Gallen, School of Finance.
    9. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    10. Andreas Richter & Jochen Ruß & Stefan Schelling, 2019. "Insurance customer behavior: Lessons from behavioral economics," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 183-205, July.
    11. Benjamin L. Collier & Daniel Schwartz & Howard C. Kunreuther & Erwann O. Michel‐Kerjan, 2022. "Insuring large stakes: A normative and descriptive analysis of households' flood insurance coverage," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(2), pages 273-310, June.
    12. Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Truong, Nghi & Martinsson, Peter & Pham Khanh Nam & Martinsson, Peter, 2013. "Risk preferences and development revisited: A field experiment in Vietnam," Discussion Papers, WZB Junior Research Group Risk and Development SP II 2013-403, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    13. Syngjoo Choi & Jeongbin Kim & Eungik Lee & Jungmin Lee, 2022. "Probability Weighting and Cognitive Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5201-5215, July.
    14. Mankaï, Selim & Marchand, Sébastien & Le, Ngoc Ha, 2024. "Valuing insurance against small probability risks: A meta-analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    15. Matyska, Branka, 2021. "Salience, systemic risk and spectral risk measures as capital requirements," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    16. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    17. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    18. Pranav Jindal, 2015. "Risk Preferences and Demand Drivers of Extended Warranties," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 39-58, January.
    19. Andrew J. Keith & Darryl K. Ahner, 2021. "A survey of decision making and optimization under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 319-353, May.
    20. Han Bleichrodt & Jason N. Doctor & Yu Gao & Chen Li & Daniella Meeker & Peter P. Wakker, 2019. "Resolving Rabin’s paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 239-260, December.

    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:arx:papers:2411.18838. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.