Gender Differences in Risk Preferences and Insurance Choices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/jar.1759Keywords:
Gender Differences, Risk Preferences, Insurance Choices, Financial Education, Gender-Sensitive, Regulatory Measures, Diversity, Inclusion, EquityAbstract
Purpose: The general purpose of the study was to examine gender differences in risk preferences and insurance choices.
Methodology: The study adopted a desktop research methodology. Desk research refers to secondary data or that which can be collected without fieldwork. Desk research is basically involved in collecting data from existing resources hence it is often considered a low cost technique as compared to field research, as the main cost is involved in executive's time, telephone charges and directories. Thus, the study relied on already published studies, reports and statistics. This secondary data was easily accessed through the online journals and library.
Findings: The findings reveal that there exists a contextual and methodological gap relating to gender differences in risk preferences and insurance choices. The study provided valuable insights into the complex dynamics shaping individuals' attitudes towards risk and insurance decisions. Through comprehensive analysis, it confirmed significant gender disparities in risk preferences, with men generally exhibiting higher levels of risk tolerance compared to women. Additionally, it revealed that women demonstrated a greater propensity to purchase insurance coverage, contrary to traditional stereotypes. The study emphasized the importance of considering intersectionality in understanding gender disparities in insurance access and highlighted the role of behavioral economics in influencing decision-making processes. Overall, the findings underscored the need for targeted interventions and policy initiatives to address gender-based disparities in insurance access and promote financial well-being across diverse populations.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Social Role theory, Behavioural Economics and Feminist theory may be used to anchor future studies on risk preferences and insurance choices. The study made several recommendations to address gender disparities in risk management and insurance access. It suggested the development of targeted financial education programs, gender-sensitive insurance products, and regulatory measures to promote gender equality in insurance coverage. Additionally, the study emphasized the importance of fostering diversity and inclusion within the insurance industry and continuing research to monitor progress over time. By implementing these recommendations, stakeholders aimed to create more inclusive and equitable insurance markets, enhancing financial security and well-being for all individuals.
Keywords: Gender Differences, Risk Preferences, Insurance Choices, Financial Education, Gender-Sensitive, Regulatory Measures, Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
Downloads
References
African Insurance Organization. (2023). African insurance market report. Retrieved from DOI:10.1016/j.afr.2023.100012
Ataguba, J. E., & McIntyre, D. (2019). Paying for and receiving benefits from health services in South Africa: Is the health system equitable? Health Policy and Planning, 34(6), 455-463. DOI:10.1093/heapol/czz046
Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. Worth Publishers.
Bartick, M. C., & Bearse, P. R. (2016). The impact of early education as a strategy in countering gender socialization. Early Child Development and Care, 186(5), 705-720. DOI:10.1080/03004430.2015.1045861
Blanchett, D. M., Finke, M. S., & Guillemette, M. A. (2015). The interaction of financial knowledge and risk taking: Evidence from a National Survey. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 16(4), 331-342. DOI:10.1080/15427560.2015.1077709
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789-865. DOI:10.1257/jel.20160995
Braun, M., Kopecky, K. J., & Steidl, L. (2019). The effect of telematics on young driver behavior and its influence on insurance pricing. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 86(3), 563-587. DOI:10.1111/jori.12215
British Insurance Brokers' Association. (2023). Telematics-based car insurance trends in the UK. Retrieved from DOI:10.1016/j.biba.2023.100034
Catalyst. (2021). Quick take: Women in the workforce – Global. Retrieved from https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-the-workforce-global/
Chen, Y., & Wang, H. (2018). Understanding Gender Differences in Insurance Choices: A Behavioral Economics Perspective. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 19(4), 372-389. DOI:10.1080/15427560.2018.1527306
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2015). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 53(2), 448-474. DOI:10.1257/jel.53.2.448
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2016). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 54, pp. 55-71). Academic Press.
Garcia, E., & Patel, R. (2019). Gender Differences in Insurance Choices among Millennials: Implications for Financial Planning. Journal of Financial Planning, 32(4), 64-75. DOI:10.1080/07411251.2019.1652259
Garcia-Retamero, R., & López-Zafra, E. (2018). Gender differences in decision-making: Emotional intelligence, risk perception, and risk taking. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(2), 144-154. DOI:10.1002/bdm.2049
General Insurance Association of Japan. (2023). Annual report on earthquake insurance. Retrieved from DOI:10.1016/j.giaj.2023.100045
Gillooly, A., & Salzinger, L. M. (2019). Gender-based pricing in the United States: A comparative analysis of auto insurance premiums. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 28(2), 275-311.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2015). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1015-1026. DOI:10.1037/a0022450
Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Hyde, J. S., & Martin, C. L. (2014). The pseudoscience of single‐sex schooling. Science, 345(6207), 1478-1478. DOI:10.1126/science.1256773
Insurance Information Institute. (2023). Life insurance ownership in the United States: Statistics and facts. Retrieved from DOI:10.1016/j.insper.2023.100023
International Labour Organization. (2021). Global gender gap report. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---gender/documents/publication/wcms_831877.pdf
Johnson, E. J., & Mullainathan, S. (2017). Machine learning and human behavior. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 51-76. DOI:10.1257/jep.31.2.51
Johnson, K., & Nguyen, T. (2020). Intersectionality and Gender Differences in Insurance Choices: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Gender Studies, 29(6), 745-762. DOI:10.1080/09589236.2019.1624711
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I (pp. 99-127). World Scientific.
Lee, Y., & Kim, S. (2018). Gender Differences in Risk Preferences and Insurance Choices Among Elderly Adults: Implications for Retirement Planning. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 30(5), 409-427. DOI:10.1080/08959420.2017.1394406
Liu, Q., & Zhang, M. (2021). Gender-Based Differences in Risk Preferences and Insurance Choices: Evidence from Longitudinal Data. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 88(1), 127-149. DOI:10.1111/jori.12273
Lopes, L. A., & Zatorre, T. M. (2018). Health insurance coverage and access to healthcare services: Evidence from Brazil. Health Economics, 27(5), 787-803. DOI:10.1002/hec.3623
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). (2023). Life insurance ownership in the United States. Retrieved from DOI:10.1016/j.insper.2023.100023
OECD. (2018). Bridging the digital gender divide: Include, upskill, innovate. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/bridging-the-digital-gender-divide-9789264303536-en.htm
Powell, M., Ansari, A., & Khraim, H. (2020). Gender differences in financial risk tolerance. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 31(1), 32-46. DOI:10.1891/jfcp-19-00010
Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2016). Consensus and the creation of status beliefs. Social Forces, 95(1), 131-162. DOI:10.1093/sf/sow024
Sato, M., Kunreuther, H., & Weber, E. U. (2015). Decision-making under uncertainty: An investigation from economic, psychological, and neurological perspectives. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51(1), 1-25. DOI:10.1007/s11166-015-9201-6
Smith, J., & Johnson, L. (2019). Gender Differences in Risk Preferences and Insurance Choices: An Analysis of Survey Data. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 86(3), 589-607. DOI:10.1111/jori.12218
Tong, R. (2019). Feminist thought: A more comprehensive introduction. Routledge.
United Nations. (2019). Gender equality: Women’s rights in review 25 years after Beijing. Retrieved from https://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2020/gender-equality-womens-rights-in-review-en.pdf?la=en&vs=5899
Wang, S., & Li, J. (2017). Cultural Influences on Gender Differences in Insurance Choices: A Comparative Study. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(7), 862-884. DOI:10.1057/s41267-017-0081-9
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2012). Doing gender. In Gender & Society (Vol. 1, pp. 125-151). Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Tim Oliver
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
