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.
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 11 - 20 of 29
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of having a borrowing option in a defined contribution (DC) pension plan on contribution rates and total debt. The authors used data from the United…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Experiments Using Undergraduate Students This study used three experiments in a controlled setting to examine undergraduate students’ intuitions of retirement savings growth, understanding of…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s key objective was to examine the impact of Quick Enrollment, an option enabling individuals to more quickly and easily enroll in a retirement savings plan, on plan enrollment rates and…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Laboratory experiments This study used two laboratory experiments to examine the relationship between the number of choices offered and decision making. Individuals were asked to choose between…Reducing the Complexity Costs of 401(k) Participation through Quick Enrollment (Laibson et al. 2009)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the effect of a simplified 401(k) enrollment procedure called Quick Enrollment on plan participation through three trials at two anonymous companies (two trials…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to assess the effect of a retirement planning aid on encouraging new hires at a large institution to enroll in a supplemental retirement account (SRA). The authors presented…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of requiring employees to actively decide whether to enroll in a 401(k) plan, called active-decision enrollment, on newly hired employees’ 401(k) enrollment decisions…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of requiring employees at a large, U.S.-based company to actively choose the asset allocation for an employer’s matching 401(k) contributions, rather than automatically…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to determine whether tax policies that differently frame the rollover of lump-sum distributions (LSDs) from defined-contribution retirement plans into tax-preferred funds…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study aimed to determine whether the number of fund options offered within a given asset class (for example, domestic equities) by a 401(k) plan influences the types of investments made by plan…
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.