A new study from the University of Georgia has found that adults under the age of 34 are significantly more willing to commit insurance fraud than their older counterparts. The research suggests that youth not only have fewer reservations about deceiving companies or adjusters to gain a financial advantage, but many may also fail to recognise that their actions amount to a crime. For younger generations, bending the truth on an insurance application or claim can feel like a clever workaround rather than a punishable offence.

Brenda Cude, professor emerita in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences at UGA and lead author of the study, explained that the adversarial relationship many young people feel toward insurers may fuel this behaviour. “If you’re pushed into a position of thinking you need to fight, maybe that pushes people into actions they wouldn’t otherwise consider,” she said. “And when people don’t realise their actions are technically illegal, they can be blindsided by the serious consequences that follow.”

The study relied on data from the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, which surveyed nearly 1,500 adults about their attitudes and behaviours around insurance claims. Respondents were asked whether they would consider exaggerating damages after a car accident, omitting or falsifying information on an application to secure lower premiums, or helping a medical provider bill for treatments never received. They were also asked if they knew of anyone who had committed such acts, revealing how widespread these attitudes may be.

The results showed a stark generational divide. Two out of five respondents aged 25 to 34 said they were unbothered by the idea of engaging in insurance fraud under certain circumstances. Many considered such acts to be clever money-saving strategies or a way to help friends in need. Cude pointed to one typical example: reporting that a car is parked at a parent’s suburban home rather than in a city centre. For the policyholder, it may seem like a harmless detail, but it constitutes fraud in the eyes of insurers and regulators.

In contrast, tolerance for fraud was far lower among older adults. Only about 5% of respondents aged 55 and over indicated that they would be comfortable with deceptive practices. According to Cude, this contrast may reflect ethical differences across generations. Older people may draw on a firmer moral compass, while younger adults operate under a more situational code of ethics. For millennials and members of Generation Z, fraudulent behaviour only becomes objectionable when it carries immediate, severe, or emotionally distressing consequences.

Interestingly, dislike of insurers was universal across the survey. Respondents of all ages expressed frustration with insurance companies, often viewing them as impersonal or unfair. Yet this generalised disdain did not predict fraudulent behaviour. Instead, the researchers argued, younger people’s relative ignorance of what qualifies as fraud may explain their willingness to commit it. Many do not understand how insurers calculate risks, why specific claims are denied, or how fraudulent activity affects the broader pool of policyholders.

For Cude, the study highlights the need for education as much as enforcement. She suggested that younger generations would benefit from clearer information about what constitutes legitimate claims and what crosses the line into fraud. “We need to think more about how to approach younger folks in terms of insurance fraud,” she said. “Part of that solution might be experience, but part of it is also education. People don’t really understand their insurance very well, or the difference between a legitimate practice and one that could have major consequences.”

More information: Brenda Cude et al, Factors That Influence Willingness to Commit Insurance Fraud, Journal of Consumer Affairs. DOI: 10.1111/joca.70015

Journal information: Journal of Consumer Affairs Provided by University of Georgia