IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/cesptp/halshs-03723901.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Demande d'assurance : Faut-il abandonner le critère de l'espérance d'utilité ?

Author

Listed:
  • Karine Darjinoff

    (TEAM - Théories et Applications en Microéconomie et Macroéconomie - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • François Pannequin

    (GRID - Groupe de Recherche sur le risque, l'Information et la Décision - ENS Cachan - École normale supérieure - Cachan - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This paper presents a reflection on the expected utility model. The aim is to assess this criteria according to his ability to predict insurance behavior, with experiments and real observations. Four main facts are: the predominance of deductible insurance policy on the market, economic development and insurance, the choice between complete insurance and retention and the perception of risk. We present the predictions of expected utility theory and several results are presented. Thus, some experimental and real results do not respect the predictions. (1) Insurance seem to be a normal good. (2) Subjects have diverse attitudes: subjects who are risk-averse in one situtation become risk-seeking in another, and vice-versa (Slovic et al., 1979). (3) They prefer extreme insurance policies (Schoemaker and Kunreuther, 1979). (4) Transformation effects in the loss distribution are generally consistent with the theoretical work of Eeckhoudt, Gollier and Schlesinger (1991). However, if there is a mean-preserving transformation (an increase in risk) affecting only portions of the loss distribution above the deductible, then some people change their optimal deductible (Brandao, 1994). (5) Expected utility theory with a concave utility function implies that probalistic insurance must be preferred to regular insurance, but the majority of subjects reject probalistic insurance (Kahneman et Tversky, 1979). (6) Subjects are sensitive to te context of decision (distorted in their perceptions of risk and framing effects), subjects overweight low probabilities, and underweight high ones. Furthermore, subjects' pricing decisions are sensitive to ambiguity and aversion to ambiguity decreases as the probabilities of loss increases, there is a preference for ambiguity for high probabilities (Hogarth and Kunreuther, 1989). We show that belief, perceptions and judgements must be taken into account in individual-decision making and further research must determine which theory better explains observed behavior. If experimental studies, stemming from literature, generally call the normative theory into question, they omit to assess the main result of the theory of insurance demand: optimality of deductible insurance contracts. An original test let renove this insufficiency; these experimental results are not completely consistent with the EU model's predictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Karine Darjinoff & François Pannequin, 2000. "Demande d'assurance : Faut-il abandonner le critère de l'espérance d'utilité ?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03723901, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:halshs-03723901
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03723901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03723901/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 151-151.
    2. Gur Huberman & David Mayers & Clifford W. Smith Jr., 1983. "Optimal Insurance Policy Indemnity Schedules," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 415-426, Autumn.
    3. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. "Risk, Ambiguity, and Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-35, April.
    4. Mayers, David & Smith, Clifford W, Jr, 1983. "The Interdependence of Individual Portfolio Decisions and the Demand for Insurance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(2), pages 304-311, April.
    5. Brookshire, David S & Thayer. Mark A & Tschirhart, John & Schulze, William D, 1985. "A Test of the Expected Utility Model: Evidence from Earthquake Risks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(2), pages 369-389, April.
    6. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    7. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 279-279.
    8. Raviv, Artur, 1979. "The Design of an Optimal Insurance Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 84-96, March.
    9. 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..
    10. John C. Hershey & Howard C. Kunreuther & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1982. "Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 936-954, August.
    11. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    12. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    13. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1971. "Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 66-84, March.
    14. Kunreuther, Howard & Hogarth, Robin & Meszaros, Jacqueline, 1993. "Insurer Ambiguity and Maarket Failure," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 71-87, August.
    15. Eeckhoudt, Louis & Gollier, Christian & Schlesinger, Harris, 1991. "Increases in risk and deductible insurance," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 435-440, December.
    16. Szpiro, George G, 1986. "Measuring Risk Aversion: An Alternative Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(1), pages 156-159, February.
    17. Camerer, Colin & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. "Experimental Markets for Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 265-299, September.
    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. Henri Loubergé, 1998. "Risk and Insurance Economics 25 Years After," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 23(4), pages 540-567, October.
    2. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    4. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    5. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Zuo Quan Xu, 2018. "Pareto optimal moral-hazard-free insurance contracts in behavioral finance framework," Papers 1803.02546, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    7. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Vesna Prasnikar, 1993. "Binary Lottery Payoffs: Do They Control Risk Aversion?," Discussion Papers 1059, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    11. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    12. Haim Levy, 2010. "The CAPM is Alive and Well: A Review and Synthesis," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 16(1), pages 43-71, January.
    13. Donatella Baiardi & Marco Magnani & Mario Menegatti, 2020. "The theory of precautionary saving: an overview of recent developments," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 513-542, June.
    14. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    15. Valeri Zakamouline & Steen Koekebakker, 2009. "A Generalisation of the Mean†Variance Analysis," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 15(5), pages 934-970, November.
    16. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    17. Mich�le Cohen, 2015. "Risk Perception, Risk Attitude, and Decision: A Rank-Dependent Analysis," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 53-70, March.
    18. Zuo Quan Xu, 2021. "Moral-hazard-free insurance: mean-variance premium principle and rank-dependent utility theory," Papers 2108.06940, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    19. Levy, Haim & Wiener, Zvi, 2013. "Prospect theory and utility theory: Temporary versus permanent attitude toward risk," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-23.
    20. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    21. Raymond H. Chan & Ephraim Clark & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2020. "New development on the third-order stochastic dominance for risk-averse and risk-seeking investors with application in risk management," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(2), pages 108-132, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    insurance; risk; expected utility; context effect; assurance; risque; utilité espérée; effet de contexte;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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:hal:cesptp:halshs-03723901. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.