IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v20y2000i3p271-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Buying Insurance for Disaster-Type Risks: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Ganderton, Philip T.
  • Brookshire, David S.
  • McKee, Michael
  • Stewart, Steve
  • Thurston, Hale

Abstract

This paper presents a series of experiments that confront subjects with low probability, high loss situations. A rich parameter set is examined and we find subjects respond to low probability, high loss risks in predictable ways. As loss events become more likely, or loss amounts get larger, or the cost of insurance falls, subjects are more likely to buy indemnifying insurance, even for the class of low probability risks that usually presents problems for standard expected utility theory. A novel application of Cameron's method to estimate willingness to pay from dichotomous choice responses allows us to estimate willingness to pay for insurance. We do not observe the bimodal distribution of bids found in other studies of similar risk situations. Copyright 2000 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Ganderton, Philip T. & Brookshire, David S. & McKee, Michael & Stewart, Steve & Thurston, Hale, 2000. "Buying Insurance for Disaster-Type Risks: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 271-289, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:20:y:2000:i:3:p:271-89
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles T. Clotfelter & Philip J. Cook, 1991. "The "Gambler's Fallacy" in Lottery Play," NBER Working Papers 3769, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    3. Kunreuther, Howard, 1996. "Mitigating Disaster Losses through Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 12(2-3), pages 171-187, May.
    4. Camerer, Colin & Kunreuther, Howard, 1993. "Making Decisions about Liability and Insurance: Editors' Comments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 5-15, August.
    5. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    6. Viscusi, W Kip, 1990. "Do Smokers Underestimate Risks?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1253-1269, December.
    7. McClelland, Gary H & Schulze, William D & Coursey, Don L, 1993. "Insurance for Low-Probability Hazards: A Bimodal Response to Unlikely Events," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 95-116, August.
    8. Gary H. McClelland & William D. Schulze & Brian Hurd, 1990. "The Effect of Risk Beliefs on Property Values: A Case Study of a Hazardous Waste Site," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 485-497, December.
    9. Colin F. Camerer & Howard Kunreuther, 1989. "Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 565-592.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:237-245 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Daniel R. Petrolia & Craig E. Landry & Keith H. Coble, 2013. "Risk Preferences, Risk Perceptions, and Flood Insurance," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 227-245.
    3. Daniel Sutter & Marc Poitras, 2010. "Do people respond to low probability risks? Evidence from tornado risk and manufactured homes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 181-196, April.
    4. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen, 2018. "The impact of regret and worry on the threshold level of concern for flood insurance demand: Evidence from Dutch homeowners," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(3), pages 237-245, May.
    5. Howard Kunreuther, 2006. "Disaster Mitigation and Insurance: Learning from Katrina," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 604(1), pages 208-227, March.
    6. Mona Ahmadiani & Susana Ferreira & Craig E. Landry, 2019. "Flood Insurance and Risk Reduction: Market Penetration, Coverage, and Mitigation in Coastal North Carolina," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(4), pages 1058-1082, April.
    7. Rashmita Basu, 2013. "Willingness-to-pay to prevent Alzheimer’s disease: a contingent valuation approach," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 233-245, December.
    8. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    9. John C. Whitehead, 2006. "Willingness to Pay for Low Probability, Low Loss Hazard Insurance," Working Papers 06-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    10. 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.
    11. Bergstrom, John C. & Taylor, Laura O., 2006. "Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 351-360, December.
    12. Michèle Cohen & Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva, 2008. "Dynamic Decision Making when Risk Perception Depends on Past Experience," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 173-192, March.
    13. Surminski, Swenja & Eldridge, Jillian, 2015. "Flood insurance in England: an assessment of the current and newly proposed insurance scheme in the context of rising flood risk," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 66256, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Andrea Morone & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2006. "Valuing Protection against Low Probability, High Loss Risks: Experimental Evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-34, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    15. Alan Berger & Case Brown & Carolyn Kousky & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The Challenge of Degraded Environments: How Common Biases Impair Effective Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1423-1433, September.
    16. Craig E. Landry & Mohammad R. Jahan‐Parvar, 2011. "Flood Insurance Coverage in the Coastal Zone," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 78(2), pages 361-388, June.
    17. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    18. Ozlem Ozdemir & Andrea Morone, 2014. "An experimental investigation of insurance decisions in low probability and high loss risk situations," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 9(1), pages 53-67, April.
    19. Hasson, Reviva & Löfgren, Åsa & Visser, Martine, 2010. "Climate change in a public goods game: Investment decision in mitigation versus adaptation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 331-338, December.
    20. José L Oviedo & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2022. "Contingent valuation of landowner demand for forest amenities: application in Andalusia, Spain [Optimal design for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound and bivar," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(3), pages 615-643.
    21. Kevin M. Simmons & Jamie Brown Kruse & Douglas A. Smith, 2002. "Valuing Mitigation: Real Estate Market Response to Hurricane Loss Reduction Measures," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(3), pages 660-671, January.

    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:kap:jrisku:v:20:y:2000:i:3:p:271-89. 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.