192 M Tanninen, T-K Lehtonen, and M Ruckenstein
by talking about how the policy appeared to offer something interesting
enough for them to acquire, though multiple reasons were provided. Techsavvy customers were simply keen on trying out the policy, curious about its
mechanisms and eager to see its future developments. Others were attracted
by the self-tracking features, which they envisioned would help them understand and manage their daily routines, such as sleeping and exercise. Many
informants found the policies’ (potential) bonuses compelling, providing
them with an opportunity to obtain extra coverage or other benefits.
Still, notwithstanding the novel features on offer, the need for insurance
remained the main reason for purchasing a life insurance policy, including
one with behaviour-based features. Acquiring new kinds of information on
one’s own life and the possibility of using self-tracking technology were seen
as additional benefits, not something essential. What mattered most was the
security that insurance offers. However, the ‘smart’ features appear to have
sparked interest and affected the final decision to purchase a policy from a
specific insurance provider and thus, in some cases, those features served
primarily as marketing devices (see McFall 2014).
In the focus groups, a positive attitude towards and curiosity about the
policies were mixed with reservations. The pronounced ambivalence should
not have come as a surprise, even for Finnish insurance companies. In fact,
their own market research, which was made available to us as researchers,
had shown that people are generally quite apprehensive about behaviourbased life insurance products. Though people had voluntarily taken out
policies, their outlook was not solely positive. Even if the informants were
interested in the products and thought that they were beneficial, they
remained fearful and even suspicious about the effect that the new instruments could have on policyholder privacy and on their relationship with
their insurance company. Notions of smart insurance appeared to be characterised by more general ‘data anxiety’ (Pink, Lanzeni & Horst 2018) or
‘data ambivalence’ (Lomborg et al. 2020).
In the sections below, we discuss in greater detail how the customers
speculated about the use of personal data in behaviour-based life insurance
policies and reconciled their positive and negative feelings. The oscillation
between attraction and concern is not only a characteristic of the insurer–
insuree relationship but has also been documented in other kinds of data
relations. In all cases, the key question has to do with boundaries: when
does ‘dataveillance’ become too intrusive and creepy (Lupton & Michael
2017; Ruckenstein & Granroth 2020)? The informants see personal data as
an asset on which they can capitalise to obtain better services and benefits.
As they have chosen to purchase behaviour-based insurance voluntarily,
they accept data collection. Yet, they are left with mixed feelings. People
were by and large not suspicious of the precise policy that they had taken out
or the company that sold it, and they generally thought that they retained
their self-determination as to the degree of disclosure of their private daily
routines and actions. Still, they did fear a loss of control over their personal
by talking about how the policy appeared to offer something interesting
enough for them to acquire, though multiple reasons were provided. Techsavvy customers were simply keen on trying out the policy, curious about its
mechanisms and eager to see its future developments. Others were attracted
by the self-tracking features, which they envisioned would help them understand and manage their daily routines, such as sleeping and exercise. Many
informants found the policies’ (potential) bonuses compelling, providing
them with an opportunity to obtain extra coverage or other benefits.
Still, notwithstanding the novel features on offer, the need for insurance
remained the main reason for purchasing a life insurance policy, including
one with behaviour-based features. Acquiring new kinds of information on
one’s own life and the possibility of using self-tracking technology were seen
as additional benefits, not something essential. What mattered most was the
security that insurance offers. However, the ‘smart’ features appear to have
sparked interest and affected the final decision to purchase a policy from a
specific insurance provider and thus, in some cases, those features served
primarily as marketing devices (see McFall 2014).
In the focus groups, a positive attitude towards and curiosity about the
policies were mixed with reservations. The pronounced ambivalence should
not have come as a surprise, even for Finnish insurance companies. In fact,
their own market research, which was made available to us as researchers,
had shown that people are generally quite apprehensive about behaviourbased life insurance products. Though people had voluntarily taken out
policies, their outlook was not solely positive. Even if the informants were
interested in the products and thought that they were beneficial, they
remained fearful and even suspicious about the effect that the new instruments could have on policyholder privacy and on their relationship with
their insurance company. Notions of smart insurance appeared to be characterised by more general ‘data anxiety’ (Pink, Lanzeni & Horst 2018) or
‘data ambivalence’ (Lomborg et al. 2020).
In the sections below, we discuss in greater detail how the customers
speculated about the use of personal data in behaviour-based life insurance
policies and reconciled their positive and negative feelings. The oscillation
between attraction and concern is not only a characteristic of the insurer–
insuree relationship but has also been documented in other kinds of data
relations. In all cases, the key question has to do with boundaries: when
does ‘dataveillance’ become too intrusive and creepy (Lupton & Michael
2017; Ruckenstein & Granroth 2020)? The informants see personal data as
an asset on which they can capitalise to obtain better services and benefits.
As they have chosen to purchase behaviour-based insurance voluntarily,
they accept data collection. Yet, they are left with mixed feelings. People
were by and large not suspicious of the precise policy that they had taken out
or the company that sold it, and they generally thought that they retained
their self-determination as to the degree of disclosure of their private daily
routines and actions. Still, they did fear a loss of control over their personal