Claims Auditing in Automobile Insurance: Fraud Detection and Deterrence Objectives

Research on insurer management of opportunism in claiming has developed in two parallel literatures. One is a theoretical literature on insurance contracting that yields predictions about the nature of optimal auditing strategies for the deterrence of fraud. The other is a literature based upon statistical analysis of claims that yields empirical strategies for the detection of fraudulent claims. This article links the two literatures by providing an empirical assessment of insurers’ auditing practices in relation to theoretical predictions. The analysis makes use of a data set on the disposition of more than 1,000 randomly selected automobile personal injury protection claims settled in the state of Massachusetts. The findings of the article are consistent with the use of rational auditing strategies by insurers and with the use of audits for both deterrence and detection.     

Correction to: Framing effects on risk-taking behavior: evidence from a field experiment in multiple choice tests

Experimental Economics -     

Framing effects on risk-taking behavior: evidence from a field experiment in multiple-choice tests

We exploit testing data to gain better understanding on framing effects on decision-making and performance under risk. In a randomized field experiment, we modified the framing of scoring rules for penalized multiple-choice tests. In penalized multiple-choice tests, right answers are typically framed as gains while wrong answers are framed as losses (Mixed-framing). In the Loss-framing proposed, both non-responses and wrong answers are presented in a loss domain. According to our theoretical model, we expect the change in the framing to decrease students’ non-response and to increase students’ performance. Under the Loss-framing, students’ non-response reduces by a 18%-20%. However, it fails to increase students’ scores. Indeed, our results support the possibility of impaired performance in the Loss-framing.