Skip to main content
  • Behavioral Finance: Retirement

    This topic area focuses on interventions grounded in behavioral economics that aim to increase individuals’ savings for retirement. These interventions leverage observations about how employees’ choices differ from the predictions of standard economic models in order to affect behavior. CLEAR assesses the quality of existing causal evidence for this topic area, using other types of research as background and context.

    Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 1996 - 2016.

Synthesis Reports

Synthesis reports look at the research evidence across studies within a topic area. They also highlight gaps in the literature, and suggest areas in which further research is needed.

751
Findings:
  • People have relatively limited knowledge about saving for retirement and can be induced to save more when provided with additional information.

  • Making retirement more salient, by having people think of themselves in retirement or providing a target retirement date, can increase intentions to save and alter investment choices.

  • People can become overwhelmed by the number of investment options they face; when this occurs, they tend to use simple rules to make decisions.

View full synthesis report: Behavioral Finance Synthesis: Findings
752
Findings:
  • Many studies have demonstrated a relationship between default options and behavior. Taken together, these studies suggest that default options can affect investment behavior.

  • But no study produces strong causal evidence on the impacts of defaults on its own.

  • There is little evidence available on how the impacts of behavioral interventions designed to influence retirement savings vary by employee age, gender, income, or race.

  • There is little evidence available on how the impacts of behavioral interventions designed to influence retirement affect total savings.

View full synthesis report: Behavioral Finance Synthesis: Gaps

Recently Added

CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.

Export Results

Displaying 1 - 10 of 28

CLEAR Icon Key

Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.

  • High Causal Evidence

    High Causal Evidence Icon

    Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.

  • Moderate Causal Evidence

    Moderate Causal Evidence Icon

    Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.

  • Low Causal Evidence

    Low Causal Evidence Icon

    Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.

  • Causal Impact Analysis

    Causal Analysis (No Rating) Icon

    Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.

  • Descriptive Analysis

    Descriptive Analysis Icon

    Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.

  • Implementation Analysis

    Implementation Analysis Icon

    Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.

  • Favorable

    The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.

    The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.

  • Mixed

    The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.

    The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.

  • None

    The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.

    The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.

  • Unfavorable

    The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.

    The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.

  • Not applicable

    Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.

    Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.

  • Favorable - low evidence

    The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.

  • Mixed - low evidence

    The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.

  • None - low evidence

    The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.

  • Unfavorable - low evidence

    The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.