Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-6tpvb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T23:17:44.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Anne Corcos ,
François Pannequin  and
Claude Montmarquette
Anne Corcos*
Affiliation:
CURAPP-ESS UMR 7319, CNRS, Université de Picardie, Pôle Université Cathédrale, 10, Placette Lafleur, BP 2716, 80027 Amiens Cedex 1, France
François Pannequin*
Affiliation:
CREST, ENS Paris-Saclay, Université Paris-Saclay, 61, Avenue du Président Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France
Claude Montmarquette*
Affiliation:
CIRANO, Université de Montréal, 1130 Sherbrooke Street West, Suite 1400, Montreal, QC H3A 2M8, Canada
*
anne.corcos@u-picardie.fr
pannequin@ecogest.ens-cachan.fr
Claude.Montmarquette@cirano.qc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

Demand for insuranceConditional demandDecision to buy insuranceRisk attitudeExperimental study

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D81: Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 836 - 859
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chakravarty, S, & Roy, J (2009). Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: An experimental study. Theory and Decision, 66(3), 199–228. 10.1007/s11238-008-9112-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A, & Einav, L (2007). Estimating risk preferences from deductible choice. American Economic Review, 97(3), 745–788. 10.1257/aer.97.3.745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eeckhoudt, L, Gollier, C, & Schlesinger, H (2005). Economic and financial decisions under risk, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esho, N, Kirievsky, A, Ward, D, & Zurbruegg, R (2004). Law and the determinants of property-casualty insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 71(2), 265–283. 10.1111/j.0022-4367.2004.00089.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etchart-Vincent, N, & l’Haridon, O (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, 42, 61–83. 10.1007/s11166-010-9110-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hershey, JC, & Schoemaker, PJH (1980). Risk taking and problem context in the domain of losses: An expected utility analysis. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 47(1), 111–132. 10.2307/252685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C, & Laury, S (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655. 10.1257/000282802762024700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaspersen, J (2016). Hypothetical surveys and experimental studies of insurance demand: A review. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83(1), 217–255. 10.1111/jori.12100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D, & Tversky, A (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. 10.2307/1914185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunreuther, H, & Michel-Kerjan, E (2013). Demand for multi-year insurance: experimental evidence, Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Lévy-Garboua, L, Maafi, H, Masclet, D, & Terracol, A (2012). Risk aversion and framing effects. Experimental Economics, 15, 128–144. 10.1007/s10683-011-9293-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossin, J (1968). Aspects of rational insurance purchasing. Journal of Political Economy, 77(4), 553–568. 10.1086/259427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps, C. (1973) Demand for health insurance: a theoretical and empirical investigation. Working Paper: Rand/R-1054-OEO. http://hdl.handle.net/1802/2594.Google Scholar
Richards, T. J. (2000). A two-stage model of the demand for specialty crop insurance. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 25(1), 177–194.Google Scholar
Schoemaker, PJH, & Kunreuther, HC (1979). An experimental study of insurance decisions. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 46(4), 603–618. 10.2307/252533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P, Fischhoff, B, Lichtenstein, S, Corrigan, B, & Combs, B (1977). Preference for insuring against probable small losses: Insurance implications. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 44(2), 237–258. 10.2307/252136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, RH, & Johnson, EJ (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36(6), 643–660. 10.1287/mnsc.36.6.643CrossRefGoogle Scholar