{"title":"评估小概率风险保险:元分析","authors":"Selim Mankaï , Sébastien Marchand , Ngoc Ha Le","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The demand for voluntary insurance against low-probability, high-impact risks is lower than expected. To assess the magnitude of the demand, we conduct a meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies using a dataset of experimentally elicited and survey-based estimates. We find that the average stated willingness to pay (WTP) for insurance is 87 % of expected losses. We perform a meta-regression analysis to examine the heterogeneity in aggregate WTP across these studies. The meta-regression reveals that information about loss probability and probability levels positively influence relative willingness to pay, whereas respondents’ average income and age have a negative effect. Moreover, we identify cultural sub-factors, such as power distance and uncertainty avoidance, that provided additional explanations for differences in WTP across international samples. Methodological factors related to the sampling and data collection process significantly influence the stated WTP. Our results, robust to model specification and publication bias, are relevant to current debates on stated preferences for low-probability risks management.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Valuing insurance against small probability risks: A meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Selim Mankaï , Sébastien Marchand , Ngoc Ha Le\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The demand for voluntary insurance against low-probability, high-impact risks is lower than expected. To assess the magnitude of the demand, we conduct a meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies using a dataset of experimentally elicited and survey-based estimates. We find that the average stated willingness to pay (WTP) for insurance is 87 % of expected losses. We perform a meta-regression analysis to examine the heterogeneity in aggregate WTP across these studies. The meta-regression reveals that information about loss probability and probability levels positively influence relative willingness to pay, whereas respondents’ average income and age have a negative effect. Moreover, we identify cultural sub-factors, such as power distance and uncertainty avoidance, that provided additional explanations for differences in WTP across international samples. Methodological factors related to the sampling and data collection process significantly influence the stated WTP. Our results, robust to model specification and publication bias, are relevant to current debates on stated preferences for low-probability risks management.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51637,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000211\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000211","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Valuing insurance against small probability risks: A meta-analysis
The demand for voluntary insurance against low-probability, high-impact risks is lower than expected. To assess the magnitude of the demand, we conduct a meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies using a dataset of experimentally elicited and survey-based estimates. We find that the average stated willingness to pay (WTP) for insurance is 87 % of expected losses. We perform a meta-regression analysis to examine the heterogeneity in aggregate WTP across these studies. The meta-regression reveals that information about loss probability and probability levels positively influence relative willingness to pay, whereas respondents’ average income and age have a negative effect. Moreover, we identify cultural sub-factors, such as power distance and uncertainty avoidance, that provided additional explanations for differences in WTP across international samples. Methodological factors related to the sampling and data collection process significantly influence the stated WTP. Our results, robust to model specification and publication bias, are relevant to current debates on stated preferences for low-probability risks management.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.