Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks: Evidence from a large representative survey
This paper investigates how the general public behaves when confronted with low probability events and ambiguity in an insurance context. It reports the results of a questionnaire completed by a large representative sample of the French population that aims at separating attitudes toward risk, imprecision and conflict and at determining if there is a demand for ambiguous and extreme event risks. The data show a strong distinction between two aspects of the problem : the decision of purchasing insurance and the willingness to pay. In the decision to insure, more than 25% of the respondents refuse to buy insurance and people are more willing to insure in a risky situation than in an ambiguous one. This certain taste for risk can be explained by the respondents' observable characteristics. In addition, it highlights a lack of confidence in the insurance markets. When it comes to willingness to pay, people exhibit ambiguity seeking behaviors. They are willing to pay more under risk than under ambiguity (embracing here imprecision and conflict), revealing that people consider ambiguous situations as inferior. Furthermore, respondents behave differently under imprecision and conflict. They exhibit a preference for consensual information and dislike conflicts. However, the willingness to pay is poorly correlated with observable characteristics.
|Date of creation:||Jan 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: + 33 44 07 81 00
Fax: + 33 1 44 07 83 01
Web page: http://centredeconomiesorbonne.univ-paris1.fr/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Clare Chua Chow & Rakesh Sarin, 2002. "Known, Unknown, and Unknowable Uncertainties," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 127-138, March.
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
- Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy, 2009. "Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 199-228, March.
- Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2010. "Is Imprecise Knowledge Better than Conflicting Expertise? Evidence from Insurers’ Decisions in the United States," ICBBR Working Papers 7, International Centre for Behavioural Business Research.
- Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2013.
"Decisions with conflicting and imprecise information,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 427-452, July.
- Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2009. "Decisions with conflicting and imprecise information," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 27005, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2013. "Decisions with conflicting and imprecise information," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00443075, HAL.
- repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00443075 is not listed on IDEAS
- Carmela Di Mauro & Anna Maffioletti, 2001. "The Valuation of Insurance under Uncertainty: Does Information about Probability Matter?," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(3), pages 195-224, December.
- Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff, 2002.
"A Smooth Model of Decision,Making Under Ambiguity,"
Economics Series Working Papers
113, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Cohen, Michele & Jaffray, Jean-Yves & Said, Tanios, 1987. "Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-22, February.
- Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2009.
"Decision theory under uncertainty,"
Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne
09064, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, revised Nov 2009.
- Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2009. "Decision theory under uncertainty," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00429573, HAL.
- 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).
- Thibault Gajdos & Takashi Hayashi & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2008. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00451982, HAL.
- Thibault Gajdos & Takashi Hayashi & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2006. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00130179, HAL.
- Dobbs, Ian M, 1991. "A Bayesian Approach to Decision-Making under Ambiguity," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 58(232), pages 417-40, November.
- 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.
- Kunreuther, Howard & Novemsky, Nathan & Kahneman, Daniel, 2001. " Making Low Probabilities Useful," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 103-20, September.
- Kahn, Barbara E & Sarin, Rakesh K, 1988. " Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(2), pages 265-72, September.
- Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages S225-50, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mse:cesdoc:12020. 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: (Lucie Label)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.