4.1 Article

The Effect of Information Disclosure on Demand for High-Load Insurance

Journal

JOURNAL OF RISK AND INSURANCE
Volume 88, Issue 1, Pages 161-193

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jori.12308

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. BRITE Lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Small Grant program
  2. Center for Insurance Education and Research
  3. Terry College of Business
  4. Department of Risk, Insurance and Healthcare Management in the Fox School of Business

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study reveals that consumers exhibit significant demand for high-load insurance in the laboratory setting, similar to naturally occurring insurance markets. However, the disclosure of information does not have any effect on the subjects' insurance choices. The implications of these results for potential public policy initiatives in insurance markets are discussed.
Economists, regulators, and consumer protection agencies have highlighted the welfare losses for consumers who purchase high-load insurance against modest stakes risks. Mandatory information disclosure is a potentially attractive public policy tool that might improve consumers' choices, but has not been widely tested in insurance settings. We conduct an incentive-compatible insurance demand experiment, in which we manipulate the information disclosed to subjects. We test whether any of the three most commonly suggested disclosures affect insurance demand, disclosing either (1) the true probability of loss, (2) the contract's expected loss, or (3) the insurer's profit on the transaction. Similar to consumers in naturally occurring insurance markets, subjects in the laboratory demonstrate significant demand for high-load insurance against modest stakes. However, we find no effect of any of the three disclosure treatments on subjects' insurance choices. We discuss the implications of our results for possible public policy initiatives in insurance markets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available