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.
Behavioral Finance: Retirement
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.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 34
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of an informational flyer on retirement contributions. This profile focuses on the individuals who were contributing to the supplemental retirement…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of an informational flyer on retirement contributions. This profile focuses on the individuals who were not contributing to the supplemental retirement…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of informational and incentive-based interventions on retirement savings behavior. This profile focuses on the individuals who were contributing the 4…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of informational and incentive-based interventions on retirement savings behavior. This profile focuses on the individuals who were contributing less…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of vignettes about financial planning on financial knowledge. The study was a randomized controlled trial and used data from the Understanding…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of automatic enrollment of new hires into a supplemental retirement savings plan (SRP) on participation in the first year. The study…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of providing information about Social Security rules and benefits on labor force participation, knowledge of Social Security, and claiming of Social…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of different ways of framing retirement information on the age at which individuals intended to claim Social Security benefits. The authors randomly…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of contribution matches, credit rebates, and advance notification on tax filers’ decisions about opening an individual retirement account (IRA)…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Experiments using U.S. households The study’s objective was to examine whether increases in the number of funds offered in a retirement plan caused investors to allocate their contributions more…
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
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis
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.
Mixed
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.
Unfavorable
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.
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.