Studia i Prace WNEiZ US

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Studia i Prace WNEiZ


ISSN: 2450-7733     eISSN: 2300-4096    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/sip.2018.51/3-06
CC BY-SA   Open Access 

Issue archive / nr 51/3 2018
Skills and willingness to buy insurance policies

Authors: Maria Forlicz
Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu Wydział Inżynieryjno-Ekonomiczny
Keywords: insurance behavioral economy decision under uncertainty
Data publikacji całości:2018
Page range:9 (67-75)
Klasyfikacja JEL: D81 D91
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

In this article attention is paid to the infl uence of one’s skills on the propensity to buy insurance policy and the aim of the work is to check whether in some situations deci sions on concluding insurance policy are connected with individuals’ ability to avoid harmful event. A hypothesis is put forward that people skilled higher are less willing to buy insurance policy against material loss (which probability is somehow related to a person’s skills) than people with lower skills. To verify the hypothesis an experiment was conducted. It consisted of asking students if they would like to insure themselves against obtaining negative points on the exam and later checking how many points they would get if not insured. Results show there is no significant difference between decisions made by those who gained more and less points.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Barreda-Tarrazona, I., García-Gallego, A., Georgantzís, N., Andaluz-Funcia, J., Gil-Sanz, A. (2011). An experiment on spatial competition with endogenous pricing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 1 (29), 74–83.
2.Bishop, R., Heberlein, T. (1979). Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 5 (61), 926–930.
3.Botelho, A., Pinto, L. (2002). Hypothetical, real, and predicted real willingness to pay in open-ended surveys: Experimental results. Applied Economics Letters, 9 (15), 993–996.
4.Chang, J., Lusk, J., Norwood, F. (2009). How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict fi eld behavior? American Journal of Agricultural Economic, 2 (91), 518–534.
5.De Craen, S., Twisk, D.A., Hagenzieker, M.P., Elffers, H., Brookhuis, K.A. (2011). Do young novice drivers overestimate their driving skills more than experienced drivers? Different methods lead to different conclusions”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 5 (43), 1660–1665.
6.Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., Wagner, G.G. (2005). Individual risk attitudes: New evidence from a large, representative, experimentally-validated survey. IZA Discussion Papers, No. 1730.
7.Erev, I., Wallsten, T.S. (1993). The effect of explicit probabilities on the decision weights and the reflection effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6, 221–241.
8.Etchart-Vincent, N., L’Haridon, O. (2011). Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behawior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1 (42), 61–83.
9.Fifer, S. (2011). Hypothetical bias in stated preference experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it? Retrieved from: http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/7923/1/ sj-fi fer-2011-thesis.pdf (20.10.2015).
10.Forsyth, D.R., Story, P.A., Kelley, K.N., McMillan, J.H. (2009). What causes failure and success? Students’ perceptions of their academic outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 2 (12), 157–174.
11.Irwin, J., McClelland, G., Schulze, W. (1992). Hypothetical and real consequences in experimental auctions for insurance against low-probability risks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2 (5), 107–116.
12.Krueger, N., Dickson, P.R. (1994). How Believing in Ourselves Increases Risk Taking: Perceived Self-Effi cacy and Opportunity Recognition. Decision Sciences, 25, 385–400.
13.Kruger, J., Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Diffi culties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Infl ated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychological Association, 6 (77), 1121–1134.
14.Langer, E.J. (1975). The Illusion of Control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2 (32), 311–328.
15.List, J., Shogren, J. (1998). Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a fi eld experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2 (37), 193–205.
16.Neill, H., Cummings, R., Ganderton, P., Harrison, G., McGukin, T. (1994). Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics, 70, 145–154.
17.Nordgren, L.F., Pligt van der, J., Harreveld van, F. (2007). Unpacking Perceived Control in Risk Perception: The Mediating Role of Anticipated Regret. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5 (20), 533–544.
18.Rólczyński, T., Forlicz, M., Kuźmiński, Ł. (2015). Risk attitude in case of losses or gains – an experimental study. The European Journal of Finance, 6 (23), 474–486.
19.Sandroni, A., Squitani, F. (2004). A Survey on Overconfi dence, Insurance and Self-Assessment Training Programs. Retrieved from: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/fsquintani/research/survey_overconfi dence.pdf (2.07.2018).
20.Taylor, M. (2012). Risk aversion and information acquisition across real and hypothetical settings. Retrieved from: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/12401/Taylor_oregon_0171A_10391.pdf?sequence=1 (20.10.2015).
21.Weber, E.U., Blais, A.R., Shafi r, S. (2004). Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coeffi cient of variation. Psychological Review, 111, 430–445.