IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v54y2015icp105-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A prospect theory approach to assessing changes in parameters of insurance contracts with an application to money-back guarantees

Author

Listed:
  • Heiman, Amir
  • Just, David R.
  • McWilliams, Bruce P.
  • Zilberman, David

Abstract

Prospect theory has changed the way economists think about decision making under uncertainty – yet after so many years there have been few applications of the theory and those appearing mostly in finance. One of the barriers to applying the prospect theory is that it is not designed to be applicable (Barberis, 2013). This study applies prospect theory to the selection of money back guarantee (MBG) contracts. When consumers can choose from a menu of MBG contracts they are basically trading off risk with price in a way that resembles a choice of lotteries with multidimensional outcomes. Our application, which integrates reference based utility models with elements of prospect theory and the disappointment model, helps in explaining the large premium attached to MBG contracts that cannot be explained by the expected utility framework. We further show that the combination of probability weighting with disappointment aversion appears to provide a better explanation for consumers’ high valuation of MBGs relative to each one when measured separately. We empirically test how consumers’ valuation of the MBG option is affected by MBG duration, variation in the likelihood of returns, and return conditions that affect consumers’ return cost. Our approach can be applied to model choices of risk reduction mechanisms such as extended warranties, demonstrations, and sampling.

Suggested Citation

  • Heiman, Amir & Just, David R. & McWilliams, Bruce P. & Zilberman, David, 2015. "A prospect theory approach to assessing changes in parameters of insurance contracts with an application to money-back guarantees," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 105-117.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:54:y:2015:i:c:p:105-117
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2014.11.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804314001190
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. repec:eee:joinma:v:24:y:2010:i:2:p:168-180 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:eee:ijrema:v:27:y:2010:i:2:p:175-187 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    4. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    5. Che, Yeon-Koo, 1996. "Customer Return Policies for Experience Goods," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 17-24, March.
    6. Parente Stephen L., 1994. "Technology Adoption, Learning-by-Doing, and Economic Growth," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 346-369, August.
    7. Bonifield, Carolyn & Cole, Catherine & Schultz, Randall L., 2010. "Product returns on the Internet: A case of mixed signals?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(9-10), pages 1058-1065, September.
    8. Davis, Scott & Hagerty, Michael & Gerstner, Eitan, 1998. "Return policies and the optimal level of "hassle"," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 50(5), pages 445-460, September.
    9. David R. Just & Hikaru Hanawa Peterson, 2003. "Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth and Calibration of Risk in Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1234-1241.
    10. Gul, Faruk, 1991. "A Theory of Disappointment Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 667-686, May.
    11. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20.
    12. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    13. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    14. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Botond Koszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1047-1073, September.
    17. David E. Bell, 1985. "Reply---Putting a Premium on Regret," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 117-122, January.
    18. Botond Kőszegi & Paul Heidhues, 2008. "Competition and Price Variation When Consumers Are Loss Averse," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1245-1268, September.
    19. Elie Ofek & Zsolt Katona & Miklos Sarvary, 2011. ""Bricks and Clicks": The Impact of Product Returns on the Strategies of Multichannel Retailers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 42-60, 01-02.
    20. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    21. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    22. Van den Poel, Dirk & Leunis, Joseph, 1999. "Consumer Acceptance of the Internet as a Channel of Distribution," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-256, July.
    23. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    24. Hahn, Sunku, 2005. "Allowing a pre-purchase product trial in duopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 175-179, May.
    25. repec:mes:challe:v:28:y:1985:i:2:p:57-59 is not listed on IDEAS
    26. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1962. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 155-173.
    27. Jonathan Shalev, 2000. "Loss aversion equilibrium," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 29(2), pages 269-287.
    28. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, April.
    29. Tao Chen & Ajay Kalra & Baohong Sun, 2009. "Why Do Consumers Buy Extended Service Contracts?," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(4), pages 611-623, December.
    30. Jeffrey D. Shulman & Anne T. Coughlan & R. Canan Savaskan, 2009. "Optimal Restocking Fees and Information Provision in an Integrated Demand-Supply Model of Product Returns," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 577-594, December.
    31. Nerlove, Marc, 1995. "Hedonic price functions and the measurement of preferences: The case of Swedish wine consumers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1697-1716, December.
    32. Heiman, Amir & Ofir, Chezy, 2010. "The Effects of Imbalanced Competition on Demonstration Strategies," Discussion Papers 93131, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Agricultural Economics and Management.
    33. Robert J. Meyer & Arvind Sathi, 1985. "A Multiattribute Model of Consumer Choice During Product Learning," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(1), pages 41-61.
    34. David R. Just & Hikaru Hanawa Peterson, 2010. "Is Expected Utility Theory Applicable? A Revealed Preference Test," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(1), pages 16-27.
    35. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
    36. John H. Roberts & Glen L. Urban, 1988. "Modeling Multiattribute Utility, Risk, and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 167-185, February.
    37. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    38. Steven A. Matthews & Nicola Persico, 2005. "Information Acquisition and the Excess Refund Puzzle," PIER Working Paper Archive 05-015, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    39. 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.
    40. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2013. "On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: Six clarifications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 214-235, May.
    41. Eric T. Anderson & Karsten Hansen & Duncan Simester, 2009. "The Option Value of Returns: Theory and Empirical Evidence," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 405-423, 05-06.
    42. Nizovtsev, Dmitri & Novshek, William, 2004. "Money-back guarantees and market experimentation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 983-996, September.
    43. Botond Koszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2009. "Reference-Dependent Consumption Plans," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 909-936, June.
    44. Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 1986. "Disappointment and Dynamic Consistency in Choice under Uncertainty," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 271-282.
    45. H. Peyton Young, 2009. "Innovation Diffusion in Heterogeneous Populations: Contagion, Social Influence, and Social Learning," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1899-1924, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:eee:soceco:v:54:y:2015:i:c:p:105-117. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.