Anchoring Effect and Fusion Mechanism in Farmers’ Insurance Decision-Making Based on Behavioral Experiments
Main Article Content
Abstract
Current research on farmers’ insurance decision-making lacks rigorous behavioral experiments capable of revealing the micro-level psychological pathway through which long-term subsidy policies induce anchoring effects and hinder insurance conversion. This paper adopts a hybrid contextualized randomized controlled trial to study anchoring effects and intervention mechanisms in farmers’ insurance decisions. Real field decision-making elements are embedded into a controlled laboratory environment to construct a contextualized task with high ecological validity. Initial premium anchors and multidimensional intervention strategies are randomly manipulated as experimental stimuli, enabling precise measurement of anchoring strength and behavioral correction effects. The results show that long-term subsidies, as a price anchor, produce an 18.2 yuan/mu group bias in farmers’ willingness to pay. Under a low-anchor background, a combined intervention integrating loss-frame information and a default insurance structure increases the insurance conversion rate to 84.2%, while the matching rate of insurance adequacy reaches 0.92. This study provides micro-causal evidence for irrational bias in farmers’ insurance decisions and supports low-cost, high-precision behavioral intervention policy design.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
References
F. Li, D. He, J. Liu, et al., “Does crop insurance increase farmers’ income? Evidence from the pilot program of agricultural catastrophe insurance in China,” Economic Analysis and Policy, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 1002-1019, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2025.04.019.
Cao Beibei, “A study on the impact of farmers’ insurance literacy and policy promotion on their participation in agricultural insurance,” Finance, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 299-306, 2025, doi: 10.12677/fin.2025.152032.
M. Hu, F. Yi, H. Zhou, et al., “The More the Better? Reconsidering the Welfare Effect of Crop Insurance Premium Subsidy,” Agriculture, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 2050-2057, 2024, doi: 10.3390/agriculture14112050.
C. Voica D, “Subsidized Crop Insurance under Limited Access to Incomplete Financial Markets,” The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 165-189, 2023, doi: 10.1515/bejeap-2021-0073.
O. Mensah N, E. Owusu-Sekyere, and C. Adjei, “Revisiting preferences for agricultural insurance policies: Insights from cashew crop insurance development in Ghana,” Food Policy, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 102496-102502, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102496.
X. Chen, Y. Jiang, T. Wang, et al., “Enhancing Farmer Resilience Through Agricultural Insurance: Evidence from Jiangsu, China,” Agriculture, vol. 15, no. 14, pp. 1473-1478, 2025, doi: 10.3390/agriculture15141473.
G. Wu, J. Cheng, and F. Yang, “The influence of the peer effect on farmers’ agricultural insurance decision: evidence from the survey data of the karst region in China,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 19, pp. 11922-11927, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su141911922.
Y. Li, K. Hu, H. Wu, et al., “A study of the impact of policy-based agricultural insurance on farmers’ willingness to adopt pro-environmentally production behaviors: evidence from Jiangxi Province in China,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1556958-1556963, 2025, doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1556958.
N. Mishra, N. Bhandari, T. Maraseni, et al., “Technology in farming: Unleashing farmers’ behavioral intention for the adoption of agriculture 5.0,” Plos one, vol. 19, no. 8, Art. no. e0308883-e0308889, 2024, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308883.
R. Peng, Y. Zhao, E. Elahi, et al., “Does disaster shocks affect farmers’ willingness for insurance? Mediating effect of risk perception and survey data from risk-prone areas in East China,” Natural Hazards, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 2883-2899, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11069-021-04569-0.
J. Wang, Y. Wu, J. Liu, et al., “Study of the Impact of Agricultural Insurance on the Livelihood Resilience of Farmers: A Case Study of Comprehensive Natural Rubber Insurance,” Agriculture, vol. 15, no. 15, pp. 1683-1687, 2025, doi: 10.3390/agriculture15151683.
J. Cabeza-Ramírez L, D. Guerrero-Baena M, M. Luque-Vilchez, et al., “Assessing farmers’ intention to adopt drought insurance,” A combined perspective from the extended theory of planned behavior and behavioral reasoning theory. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 104818-104824, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104818.
S. Lemos, M. Halstead J, and C. Huang J, “The effects of information about price anchoring: Evidence from a choice experiment,” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 240-265, 2022, doi: 10.1017/age.2022.10.
R. Just D and J. Jiao, “Using multiple methods to improve validity,” European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1142-1169, 2025, doi: 10.1093/erae/jbaf055.
K. Ioannidis, “Anchoring on valuations and perceived informativeness,” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 102060-102065, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2023.102060.
S. Balew, E. Bulte, and M. Kassie, “Short-run subsidies and long-run willingness to pay: Learning and anchoring in an agricultural experiment in Ethiopia,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 655-669, 2025, doi: 10.1111/ajae.12498.
M. Wangithi C, M. Nyangaresi A, R. Srinivasulu, et al., “Consumer willingness to pay a premium for orange-fleshed sweet potato puree products: a gender-responsive evidence from Becker-DeGroot-Marschak experimental auction among low-and middle-income consumers in selected regions of Nairobi, Kenya,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1114468-1114474, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1114468.
S. Mamadehussene and F. Sguera, “On the Reliability of the BDM Mechanism,” Management Science, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 1166-1179, 2023, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.4409.
M. Lee and C. Han, “Ordinary least squares and instrumental-variables estimators for any outcome and heterogeneity,” The Stata Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 72-92, 2024, doi: 10.1177/1536867X241233645.
T. Słoczy´nski, “Interpreting OLS estimands when treatment effects are heterogeneous: Smaller groups get larger weights,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 501-509, 2022, doi: 10.1162/rest_a_00953.
I. Islam D, A. Rahman, R. Sarker M S, et al., “Factors affecting farmers’ willingness to adopt crop insurance to manage disaster risk: evidence from Bangladesh,” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 463-480, 2021, doi: 10.22434/IFAMR2019.0190.
G. Wassie A, G. Nesibu S, and A. Mengistu Y, “Estimating farmers’ willingness to pay for crop insurance with application of choice experiment: case study in South Gondar Zone, Ethiopia,” Agricultural Finance Review, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 19-37, 2025, doi: 10.1108/AFR-03-2024-0049.
A. Zaidi and M. Al Luhayb A S, “Two statistical approaches to justify the use of the logistic function in binary logistic regression,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2023, no. 1, pp. 5525675-5525681, 2023, doi: 10.1155/2023/5525675.
F. Baione, D. Biancalana, and P. De Angelis, “An application of Sigmoid and Double-Sigmoid functions for dynamic policyholder behavior,” Decisions in Economics and Finance, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 5-22, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10203-020-00279-7.
J. Molero-Calafell, A. Burón, X. Castells, et al., “Intention to treat and per protocol analyses: differences and similarities,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 173, no. 1, pp. 111457-111464, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111457.
S. VS H A and S. Sundar J, “Chi-square tests: A quick guide for health researchers,” Int J Adv Res (Indore), vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1214-1222, 2024, doi: 10.21474/IJAR01/19746.
P. Ramanujan, S. Bhattacharjea, and B. Alcott, “A multi-stage approach to qualitative sampling within a mixed methods evaluation: some reflections on purpose and process,” Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 355-364, 2022, doi: 10.3138/cjpe.71237.
D. Makwana, P. Engineer, A. Dabhi, et al., “Sampling methods in research: A review,” International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 762-768., 2023.