Francesco Cecchi , Robert Lensink , Edwin Slingerland
{"title":"Ambiguity attitudes and demand for weather index insurance with and without a credit bundle: experimental evidence from Kenya","authors":"Francesco Cecchi , Robert Lensink , Edwin Slingerland","doi":"10.1016/j.jbef.2023.100885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We investigate the impact of ambiguity attitudes on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for index insurance among female smallholders in Kenya. We gauge incentive-compatible measures of ambiguity aversion and insensitivity in the domain of gains and losses, as well as loss aversion. Next, we setup a framed experiment to measure WTP for insurance with basis risk. For a random subsample we introduce an alternative ‘rebate’ insurance, comparable to an insurance purchased through a loan – repaid in good years and deducted from payout in bad ones – that is expectedly more palatable for the loss averse. We find that ambiguity aversion significantly increases WTP for the standalone insurance, while loss aversion reduces it as expected. The former result is seemingly at odds with previous evidence from the field, but is consistent with a setting in which insurance ambiguity engenders relatively less disutility compared to the vagaries of weather. We show that this apparent divergence is not caused by differences in the method used to estimate ambiguity aversion compared to existing field studies. Rather, we exploit exogenous variation in the familiarity with insurance within our sample to show that it is explained away by the role of experience with the novel technology—a previously underestimated mediator. Ambiguity aversion hinders adoption at early stages but increases when the insurance is better understood. The rebate scenario, instead, all but cancels the effect of loss aversion on WTP, but the increased contractual ambiguity results in significantly lower bids by the ambiguity averse. In the lab, the WTP for rebate-type insurance-credit bundles is not different from that of the actuarially equivalent standalone insurance, implying that evidence from the field on greater uptake for the former may be attributable to liquidity constraints and time discounting effects, rather than to behavioural traits.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47026,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance","volume":"41 ","pages":"Article 100885"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214635023000990/pdfft?md5=334fc28fdfa5d65857c266727091ae34&pid=1-s2.0-S2214635023000990-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214635023000990","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We investigate the impact of ambiguity attitudes on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for index insurance among female smallholders in Kenya. We gauge incentive-compatible measures of ambiguity aversion and insensitivity in the domain of gains and losses, as well as loss aversion. Next, we setup a framed experiment to measure WTP for insurance with basis risk. For a random subsample we introduce an alternative ‘rebate’ insurance, comparable to an insurance purchased through a loan – repaid in good years and deducted from payout in bad ones – that is expectedly more palatable for the loss averse. We find that ambiguity aversion significantly increases WTP for the standalone insurance, while loss aversion reduces it as expected. The former result is seemingly at odds with previous evidence from the field, but is consistent with a setting in which insurance ambiguity engenders relatively less disutility compared to the vagaries of weather. We show that this apparent divergence is not caused by differences in the method used to estimate ambiguity aversion compared to existing field studies. Rather, we exploit exogenous variation in the familiarity with insurance within our sample to show that it is explained away by the role of experience with the novel technology—a previously underestimated mediator. Ambiguity aversion hinders adoption at early stages but increases when the insurance is better understood. The rebate scenario, instead, all but cancels the effect of loss aversion on WTP, but the increased contractual ambiguity results in significantly lower bids by the ambiguity averse. In the lab, the WTP for rebate-type insurance-credit bundles is not different from that of the actuarially equivalent standalone insurance, implying that evidence from the field on greater uptake for the former may be attributable to liquidity constraints and time discounting effects, rather than to behavioural traits.
期刊介绍:
Behavioral and Experimental Finance represent lenses and approaches through which we can view financial decision-making. The aim of the journal is to publish high quality research in all fields of finance, where such research is carried out with a behavioral perspective and / or is carried out via experimental methods. It is open to but not limited to papers which cover investigations of biases, the role of various neurological markers in financial decision making, national and organizational culture as it impacts financial decision making, sentiment and asset pricing, the design and implementation of experiments to investigate financial decision making and trading, methodological experiments, and natural experiments.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance welcomes full-length and short letter papers in the area of behavioral finance and experimental finance. The focus is on rapid dissemination of high-impact research in these areas.