IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/mgtdec/v46y2025i1p515-528.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tripartite evolutionary game and simulation of solvency supervision under C‐ROSS II based on prospect theory

Author

Listed:
  • Shilong Li
  • Zhijie Tong

Abstract

This paper focuses on the implementation of “C‐ROSS II” and utilizes an evolutionary game model to investigate regulatory issues. Based on prospect theory, a three‐party evolutionary game model is constructed among regulatory agencies, insurance companies, and consumers with incomplete rationality, examining evolutionary stability strategies. Meanwhile, considering the different attitudes of policyholders in the face of loss and return, the heterogeneous risk preference is analyzed by changing the prospect parameters. The results show that increases in penalty amounts, positive incentives, and consumer sensitivity to losses will promote the evolution of the system to the optimal stable equilibrium point. However, rises in brand incomes and rectification costs, as well as decreases in capital costs, will decrease the probability of regulatory authorities enforcing strict supervision.

Suggested Citation

  • Shilong Li & Zhijie Tong, 2025. "Tripartite evolutionary game and simulation of solvency supervision under C‐ROSS II based on prospect theory," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 46(1), pages 515-528, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:46:y:2025:i:1:p:515-528
    DOI: 10.1002/mde.4388
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4388
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/mde.4388?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Friedman, 1998. "On economic applications of evolutionary game theory," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 15-43.
    2. 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.
    3. 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..
    4. Jiali Wang & Xue Peng & Yunan Du & Fulin Wang, 2022. "A tripartite evolutionary game research on information sharing of the subjects of agricultural product supply chain with a farmer cooperative as the core enterprise," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(1), pages 159-177, January.
    5. King, Michael & Singh, Anuj Pratap, 2020. "Understanding farmers’ valuation of agricultural insurance: Evidence from Vietnam," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Xiaoyuan Qi & Ying Han & Baoling Jin, 2023. "Evolutionary game equilibrium in the downstream carbon market: Evidence from the household size in China," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(5), pages 2814-2834, July.
    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. Tianpei Tang & Yuntao Guo & Guohui Zhang & Hua Wang & Quan Shi, 2020. "Understanding the Interaction between Cyclists’ Traffic Violations and Enforcement Strategies: An Evolutionary Game-Theoretic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-29, November.
    2. Yan Li & Jiale Zhang, 2024. "Evolutionary Game Analysis of Low-Carbon Incentive Behaviour of Power Battery Recycling Based on Prospect Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-24, March.
    3. John Finch & Nicola Dinnei, 2001. "Capturing Knightian Advantages of Large Business Organisations Through Group Decision-making Processes," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 379-403.
    4. Si-hua Chen, 2017. "An Evolutionary Game Model of Knowledge Workers’ Counterproductive Work Behaviors Based on Preferences," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-11, January.
    5. Dong, Jun & Jiang, Yuzheng & Liu, Dongran & Dou, Xihao & Liu, Yao & Peng, Shicheng, 2022. "Promoting dynamic pricing implementation considering policy incentives and electricity retailers’ behaviors: An evolutionary game model based on prospect theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    6. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    7. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    8. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    9. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    10. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    11. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    12. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    13. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    14. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    15. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    16. Tetenov, Aleksey, 2012. "Statistical treatment choice based on asymmetric minimax regret criteria," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 157-165.
    17. Chen, Yanyan & Mandler, Timo & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2021. "Three decades of research on loyalty programs: A literature review and future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 179-197.
    18. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    19. Massimiliano Amarante & Mario Ghossoub & Edmund Phelps, 2012. "Contracting for Innovation under Knightian Uncertainty," Cahiers de recherche 18-2012, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    20. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.

    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:wly:mgtdec:v:46:y:2025:i:1:p:515-528. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976 .

    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.