Emotions and under-insurance 157
purchase feelings is explored here (Rick & Lowenstein 2008; Lowenstein
et al. 2001). The significance of this chapter, however, lies in its focus on
insurance – how the insurance can be deemed risky and how emotional
responses to insurance emerge in relation with others. This is an area of
research that has not received significant attention in sociology.
Furthermore, this research reflects the importance of renters who are
often overlooked in insurance debates. Booth and Kendal (2020) suggest
that renters are deemed to be at less risk by institutions such as local governments due to a lack of property ownership and assumed low asset base.
However, they argue that ‘without adequate insurance,’ renters face potentially face ‘homelessness or having no option but to live in damaged property’ (Booth & Kendal 2020, p. 742). As Osbaldiston, McShane and Oleszek
(2019) have shown, there is also evidence of increasing non-insurance
amongst renters likely due to costs, self-efficacy and confidence.
Risk, reflexivity, trust, and emotions
At a general level, reflexivity is the emergence of a state of cognition and
reflection in our modern times (Giddens 1990; Beck 1992). Giddens (1990,
p. 38) describes this condition as consisting;
in the fact that social practices are constantly examined and reformed
in the light of incoming information about those very practices, thus
constitutively altering their character.
The reflexive mind then, for Giddens (1990), is one which is consistently
drawing on new information to monitor our sense of self and identity, and
then adapt accordingly. As traditional society, which enforced certain
options on us (e.g. family, religion), begins to fade, our worlds are opened
to interpretation and importantly, different actors who claim expertise.
In place of traditional gatekeepers of information, are a proliferation of
experts in areas as diverse as school counselling through to life coaches.
However, with the proliferation of uncertainty, there arises a questioning
of the scientific expertise that previously made things ‘certain.’ Specifically,
events like Chernobyl, especially for Beck (1992), have made society sensitive
to the risks that modernity has produced. Subsequently, institutions such as
the state are no longer trusted to have all the answers and people can draw
upon other expertise to make their judgements about what to do in response
to diverse risks. This processing of different opinions and counter-opinions
from ‘so called’ expertise is what defines reflexivity. Who to invest your trust
into, how we derive this decision and what form that trust relationship takes,
need to be studied in the social sciences.
For Beck (1992) and Giddens (1990) though, this work is mostly cognitive
as we take on information from expertise and make decisions on who to
purchase feelings is explored here (Rick & Lowenstein 2008; Lowenstein
et al. 2001). The significance of this chapter, however, lies in its focus on
insurance – how the insurance can be deemed risky and how emotional
responses to insurance emerge in relation with others. This is an area of
research that has not received significant attention in sociology.
Furthermore, this research reflects the importance of renters who are
often overlooked in insurance debates. Booth and Kendal (2020) suggest
that renters are deemed to be at less risk by institutions such as local governments due to a lack of property ownership and assumed low asset base.
However, they argue that ‘without adequate insurance,’ renters face potentially face ‘homelessness or having no option but to live in damaged property’ (Booth & Kendal 2020, p. 742). As Osbaldiston, McShane and Oleszek
(2019) have shown, there is also evidence of increasing non-insurance
amongst renters likely due to costs, self-efficacy and confidence.
Risk, reflexivity, trust, and emotions
At a general level, reflexivity is the emergence of a state of cognition and
reflection in our modern times (Giddens 1990; Beck 1992). Giddens (1990,
p. 38) describes this condition as consisting;
in the fact that social practices are constantly examined and reformed
in the light of incoming information about those very practices, thus
constitutively altering their character.
The reflexive mind then, for Giddens (1990), is one which is consistently
drawing on new information to monitor our sense of self and identity, and
then adapt accordingly. As traditional society, which enforced certain
options on us (e.g. family, religion), begins to fade, our worlds are opened
to interpretation and importantly, different actors who claim expertise.
In place of traditional gatekeepers of information, are a proliferation of
experts in areas as diverse as school counselling through to life coaches.
However, with the proliferation of uncertainty, there arises a questioning
of the scientific expertise that previously made things ‘certain.’ Specifically,
events like Chernobyl, especially for Beck (1992), have made society sensitive
to the risks that modernity has produced. Subsequently, institutions such as
the state are no longer trusted to have all the answers and people can draw
upon other expertise to make their judgements about what to do in response
to diverse risks. This processing of different opinions and counter-opinions
from ‘so called’ expertise is what defines reflexivity. Who to invest your trust
into, how we derive this decision and what form that trust relationship takes,
need to be studied in the social sciences.
For Beck (1992) and Giddens (1990) though, this work is mostly cognitive
as we take on information from expertise and make decisions on who to