ISO 9001:2015

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH IN COMMERCE, MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJARCMSS) [ Vol. 9 | No. 1 (II) | January - March, 2026 ]

Decision Drivers: What Consumers Actually Use to Choose Insurance Policy

Akanksha Singh & Prof. (Dr.) L.C. Panjabi

Insurance is one of those essential financial services that gives protection against uncertain future risks and stuff like that. Even so, even though it is obviously important, what consumers actually do when they choose insurance in the marketplace is still pretty hard to explain, since a bunch of behavioral, economic, and psychological pressures are mixing together. This study tries to look at the main decision drivers that nudge consumers while selecting insurance policies. More specifically, it attempts to understand how people judge insurance products in real life, and which variables tend to steer the final purchase choice the most. The research relies on secondary material drawn from peer-reviewed journals, behavioral insurance perspectives, and theories tied to consumer decision-making. Overall, the results suggest that insurance selection is not simply rational, or driven by price alone. Instead, it is affected by an entanglement of perceived risk, trust toward insurers, premium affordability, service quality, brand reputation, policy transparency, and the overall simplicity of claims settlement. Among all of these, trust and perceived claim reliability seem to stand out as the strongest predictors of consumer preference, particularly within life and health insurance segments. From a behavioral economics viewpoint, consumers often lean on shortcuts, like brand image, recommendations from others, and similar signals, rather than comparing every detail across policies. At the same time, financial literacy matters a lot, because it changes how easily consumers can interpret policy benefits, plus exclusions, without getting confused. The study also points out that digital transformation has changed the pattern of choices in noticeable ways, where online reviews, comparison platforms, and mobile accessibility are now influential factors, sometimes more than expected. In other words, decision behavior is not static it keeps shifting as the channels evolve, and the consumer mindset adapts with it. The analysis further reveals that, while price is still a foundational cue it is often overridden by non-price elements like perceived safety and past claim experiences. People, in general, seem to drift toward insurers that have simplified policy structures, clearer messaging and quicker claim handling, even when the premium is not the absolute cheapest. In a way it becomes a kind of shortcut, or maybe a comfort signal, for consumers. Overall, the study suggests that insurance decision-making is not just one track, it is multi-layered and behaviorally shaped. Insurers therefore need to pay attention not only to competitive pricing, but also to building trust, raising service quality, and strengthening transparency in order to influence consumer choice, effectively. The results also offer practical value for policymakers, insurance companies and researchers, especially those working to increase insurance uptake and consumer satisfaction in emerging markets.

Singh, A. & Panjabi, L. (2026). Decision Drivers: What Consumers Actually Use to Choose Insurance Policy. International Journal of Advanced Research in Commerce, Management & Social Science, 09(01(II)), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.62823/IJARCMSS/9.1(II).8874
  1. Browne, M. J., & Kim, K. (1993). An international analysis of life insurance demand. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 60(4), 616–634.
  2. Campbell, J. Y. (2006). Household finance. Journal of Finance, 61(4), 1553–1604.
  3. Cummins, J. D., & Weiss, M. A. (2009). Convergence of insurance and financial markets. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 76(3), 493–545.
  4. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
  5. Kunreuther, H. (1996). Mitigating disaster losses through insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 12(2–3), 171–187.
  6. Lewis, F. D. (1989). Dependents and demand for life insurance. American Economic Review, 79(3), 452–467.
  7. Outreville, J. F. (1996). Life insurance markets in developing countries. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 63(2), 263–278.
  8. Schoemaker, P. J., & Kunreuther, H. (1979). An experimental study of insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 46(4), 603–618.
  9. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.
  10. Smith, V. L. (1968). Optimal insurance coverage. Journal of Political Economy, 76(1), 68–77.
  11. Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.
  12. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.
  13. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
  14. Zhou-Richter, T., Browne, M. J., & Gründl, H. (2010). Don’t they care? Risk perception and insurance demand. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 35(2), 339–357.
  15. Zinkhan, G. M., & Karande, K. W. (1991). Cultural and gender differences in risk-taking behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 131(5), 741–742.

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.62823/IJARCMSS/9.1(II).8874

DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.62823/IJARCMSS/9.1(II).8874


Download Full Paper:

Download