IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Is Imprecise Knowledge Better than Conflicting Expertise? Evidence from Insurers’ Decisions in the United States

Testing whether risk professionals (here insurers) behave differently under risk and ambiguity when they cover catastrophic risks (floods and earthquakes) and non-catastrophic risks (fires), this paper reports the results of the first field experiment in the United States designed to distinguish two sources of ambiguity: imprecise ambiguity (outside experts agree on a range of probability, but not on any point estimate) versus conflict ambiguity (each expert group provides precise probability estimates which differ from one group to another). Insurers charge higher premiums when faced with ambiguity than when the probability of a loss is well specified. Furthermore they charge more for conflict ambiguity than imprecise ambiguity for flood and hurricane hazards, but less so in the case of fire. The source of ambiguity also impacts causal inferences insurers make to reduce their uncertainty.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by International Centre for Behavioural Business Research in its series ICBBR Working Papers with number 7.

in new window

Date of creation: 23 Feb 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:bbr:workpa:7
Contact details of provider: Postal: Jubilee Campus, Nottingham NG2 8BB
Phone: +44-115-846 66 02
Fax: +44-115-846 66 67
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. " Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-70, October.
  2. Viscusi, W Kip, 1997. "Alarmist Decisions with Divergent Risk Information," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(445), pages 1657-70, November.
  3. Trudy Ann Cameron, 2001. "Updating Subjective Risks in the Presence of Conflicting Information: An Application to Climate Change," University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers 2003-8, University of Oregon Economics Department, revised 14 Jul 2001.
  4. Crès, Hervé & Gilboa, Itzhak & Vieille, Nicolas, 2011. "Aggregation of multiple prior opinions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(6), pages 2563-2582.
  5. Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2013. "Decisions with conflicting and imprecise information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 427-452, July.
  6. Mark J. Machina, 2009. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 385-92, March.
  7. Ho, Joanna L Y & Keller, L Robin & Keltyka, Pamela, 2002. " Effects of Outcome and Probabilistic Ambiguity on Managerial Choices," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 47-74, January.
  8. John D Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2008. "The Descriptive and Predictive Adequacy of Theories of Decision Making Under Uncertainty/Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 08/04, Department of Economics, University of York.
  9. Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff, 2002. "A Smooth Model of Decision,Making Under Ambiguity," Economics Series Working Papers 113, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
  10. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00443075 is not listed on IDEAS
  11. Thibault Gajdos & Takashi Hayashi & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2006. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v06081, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  12. Budescu, David V. & Rantilla, Adrian K. & Yu, Hsiu-Ting & Karelitz, Tzur M., 2003. "The effects of asymmetry among advisors on the aggregation of their opinions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 178-194, January.
  13. Arthur Snow, 2010. "Ambiguity and the value of information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 133-145, April.
  14. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Laetitia Placido & Aurélien Baillon & P.P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," Post-Print hal-00609214, HAL.
  15. Ning Du & David V. Budescu, 2005. "The Effects of Imprecise Probabilities and Outcomes in Evaluating Investment Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1791-1803, December.
  16. Christian Gollier, 2007. "Whom should we believe? Aggregation of heterogeneous beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 107-127, October.
  17. Kunreuther, Howard & Meszaros, Jacqueline & Hogarth, Robin M. & Spranca, Mark, 1995. "Ambiguity and underwriter decision processes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 337-352, May.
  18. Dwight Jaffee & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2008. "Long Term Insurance (LTI) for Addressing Catastrophe Risk," NBER Working Papers 14210, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. " Risk, Ambiguity, and Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-35, April.
  20. Viscusi, W Kip & Magat, Wesley A, 1992. " Bayesian Decisions with Ambiguous Belief Aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 371-87, October.
  21. W. Viscusi & Harrell Chesson, 1999. "Hopes and Fears: the Conflicting Effects of Risk Ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 157-184, October.
  22. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. " Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
  23. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
  24. Enrico Rubaltelli & Rino Rumiati & Paul Slovic, 2010. "Do ambiguity avoidance and the comparative ignorance hypothesis depend on people’s affective reactions?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 243-254, June.
  25. Erwann O. Michel-Kerjan, 2010. "Catastrophe Economics: The National Flood Insurance Program," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(4), pages 165-86, Fall.
  26. William Neilson, 2010. "A simplified axiomatic approach to ambiguity aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 113-124, October.
  27. Robin M. Hogarth & Hillel J. Einhorn, 1990. "Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 780-803, July.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bbr:workpa:7. 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: (Laure Cabantous)

The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Laure Cabantous to update the entry or send us the correct address

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.