The expected utility method has been widely suggested for making decisions under uncertainty. This paper describes an experiment designed to determine the relative acceptability of the expected utility method and of two other normative methods (the worry and comparison methods) to practicing insurance agents and risk managers in deciding how much insurance to buy. It was found that the subjects ranked the comparison method first in terms of acceptability, the worry method second, and the expected utility method third. When the subjects rated the methods according to five specified criteria-confidence in the results, understanding of the method, simplicity, ability to explain, and ease of application-the results were basically the same as their usefulness-on-balance ratings. The subjects considered confidence in the results and understanding of the method to be most important in determining a method's usefulness on balance. None of the several personality and demographic characteristics of the subjects considered showed any clear association with the different ratings of the methods. The utility method usually led to the purchase of no insurance while the other two methods suggested complete insurance with or without a deductible. The best acts according to the comparison and worry methods were quite consistent with the subjects' actual preferred acts. Decision-making under risk has been the subject of numerous books and articles. One of the most popular tools, at least John Neter, Ph.D., is Professor of Quantitative Analysis in the School of Business Administration of the University of Minnesota. He is a Fellow of both the American Statistical Association and of the American Association for Advancement of Science and is co-author of Fundamental Statistics for Business and Economics, and of Statistical Sampling for Auditors and Accountants. C. Arthur Williams, Jr., is Professor of Economics and Insurance and Associate Dean of the School of Business Administration of the University of Minnesota. He is a member of the American Academy of Actuaries and was President of A.R.I.A. in 1965. Dr. Williams is author of Price Determination in Property and Liability Insurance and is co-author of Risk Management and Insurance, of Economic and Social Security, and of Insurance: Its Theory and Practice. This paper was submitted in July, 1970. The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Graduate School and the School of Business Administration of the University of Minnesota in the conduct of this research. They also appreciate the financial support of the Insurance Conference of the Cooperative League of the U.S.A., which made possible a presentation of this paper at the American Risk and Insurance Association Risk Theory Seminar in New Orleans on 17-19 April 1970. The following members of the Conference contributed to this support: Cooperative Federee de Quebec, Cooperative Insurance Services, Ltd., Cooperators Insurance Association, CUNA International, Inc., Farmers Elevator Mutual Insurance Company, Farmland Insurance Agency, Inc., L'AssuranceVie Desjardins, La Federation des Caisses p. Desjardins, La Societe d'Assurance des Caisses Populaires, League Life Insurance Company, Members Mutual Insurance Company, MidAmerica Mutual Life Insurance Company, Mutual Service Insurance Companies, National Farmers Union Insurance Companies, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Nationwide Insurance Companies, and Urban Community Insurance Company. They would like also to acknowledge help received in carrying out the experiment and analyzing the results thereof from Stephen Barkin, Richard Cardozo, Amin Eldirghami, Robert Fiske, Ming te Lu, Ivan Ross, and Mark Walton.