IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dur/durham/2008_02.html

How do people value extended warranties?: Evidence from two field surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Marieke Huysentruyt

    (London School of Economics)

  • Daniel Read

    (Durham Business School)

Abstract

Extended warranties are popular but expensive. This paper examines how consumers value these warranties, and asks whether economic considerations alone can account for their popularity. Results from two field surveys show that consumers greatly overestimate both the likelihood and the cost of product breakdown. However, these biases alone do not explain their willingness to buy them. In fact, we find evidence of probability neglect, in which warranty purchase decision depends on the magnitude of the possible consequences of not having insurance and not on the probability of having to suffer these consequences. The expected emotional benefits ("peace of mind") from having a warranty was the best predictor of purchase decision and willingness to pay. We also found that people with higher numeracy and cognitive skills are less likely to overestimate the economic determinants of warranty value, yet are still highly influenced by emotional considerations when deciding whether to purchase a warranty. We conclude by arguing that consumer welfare could be improved by increasing the competitive intensity in the market for warranties.

Suggested Citation

  • Marieke Huysentruyt & Daniel Read, 2008. "How do people value extended warranties?: Evidence from two field surveys," Department of Economics Working Papers 2008_02, Durham University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:dur:durham:2008_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dro.dur.ac.uk/10364
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kunreuther, Howard & Novemsky, Nathan & Kahneman, Daniel, 2001. "Making Low Probabilities Useful," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 103-120, September.
    2. Roy M. Poses & Randall D. Cebul & Robert S. Wigton, 1995. "You Can Lead a Horse to Water-Improving Physicians' Knowledge of Probabilities May Not Affect Their Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(1), pages 65-75, February.
    3. Williamson, Janis & Ranyard, Rob & Cuthbert, Lisa, 2000. "Risk management in everyday insurance decisions: evidence from a process tracing study," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 19-38, April.
    4. 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..
    5. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    6. Johnson, Eric J & Hershey, John & Meszaros, Jacqueline & Kunreuther, Howard, 1993. "Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-51, August.
    7. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Decision Making under Ignorance: Arguing with Yourself," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 15-36, January.
    8. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Hanming Fang & Michael P. Keane & Dan Silverman, 2008. "Sources of Advantageous Selection: Evidence from the Medigap Insurance Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 116(2), pages 303-350, April.
    10. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    11. Robert Eisner & Robert H. Strotz, 1961. "Flight Insurance and the Theory of Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69(4), pages 355-355.
    12. Sunstein, Cass R, 2003. "Terrorism and Probability Neglect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 121-136, March-May.
    13. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    14. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson & Guillermo Moloche & Stephen Weinberg, 2005. "Information Acquisition: Experimental Analysis of a Boundedly Rational Model," Levine's Bibliography 666156000000000480, UCLA Department of Economics.
    15. Hsee, Christopher K & Kunreuther, Howard C, 2000. "The Affection Effect in Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 141-159, March.
    16. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    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. Marieke Huysentruyt & Daniel Read, 2010. "How do people value extended warranties? Evidence from two field surveys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 197-218, June.
    2. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    4. Jiakun Zheng, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Post-Print hal-04227370, HAL.
    5. Zheng, Jiakun, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 596-607.
    6. David H. Krantz & Howard C. Kunreuther, 2007. "Goals and plans in decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 137-168, June.
    7. Daniels, David P. & Zlatev, Julian J., 2019. "Choice architects reveal a bias toward positivity and certainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 132-149.
    8. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    9. McGraw, A. Peter & Todorov, Alexander & Kunreuther, Howard, 2011. "A policy maker's dilemma: Preventing terrorism or preventing blame," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 25-34, May.
    10. Zimmer, Anja & Schade, Christian & Gründl, Helmut, 2009. "Is default risk acceptable when purchasing insurance? Experimental evidence for different probability representations, reasons for default, and framings," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 11-23, February.
    11. George Loewenstein & Zachary Wojtowicz, 2023. "The Economics of Attention," CESifo Working Paper Series 10712, CESifo.
    12. Sandroni, Alvaro & Squintani, Francesco, 2013. "Overconfidence and asymmetric information: The case of insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 149-165.
    13. Dilger, Alexander, 2022. "Der Zufall in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 5/2022, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    14. Yan, Jubo & Kniffin, Kevin M. & Kunreuther, Howard C. & Schulze, William D., 2020. "The roles of reason and emotion in private and public responses to terrorism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 778-796.
    15. Changhyun Kim & Yoonseok Zang & Heli Wang & Kate Niu, 2024. "When Do Corporate Good Deeds Become a Burden? The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility Following Negative Events," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 192(2), pages 285-306, June.
    16. Gerard P. Hodgkinson & Barbara Burkhard & Nicolai J. Foss & Dietmar Grichnik & Riikka M. Sarala & Yi Tang & Marc Van Essen, 2023. "The Heuristics and Biases of Top Managers: Past, Present, and Future," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1033-1063, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Genakos, Christos & Roumanias, Costas & Valletti, Tommaso, 2023. "Is having an expert “friend” enough? An analysis of consumer switching behavior in mobile telephony," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 359-372.
    19. Raj Chetty & Amy Finkelstein, 2012. "Social Insurance: Connecting Theory to Data," NBER Working Papers 18433, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Hong Fu & Yuehua Zhang & Yinuo An & Li Zhou & Yanling Peng & Rong Kong & Calum G. Turvey, 2022. "Subjective and objective risk perceptions and the willingness to pay for agricultural insurance: evidence from an in-the-field choice experiment in rural China," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 47(1), pages 98-121, March.

    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:dur:durham:2008_02. 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: Tatiana Damjanovic (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deduruk.html .

    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.