Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Serenity Now, Save Later? Evidence on Retirement Savings Puzzles from a 401(K) Field Experiment

Serenity Now, Save Later? Evidence on Retirement Savings Puzzles from a 401(K) Field Experiment

By Saurabh Bhargava & Lynn Conell-Price

Economists have advanced several psychological frictions to explain why many 401(k)-eligible employees undersave for retirement despite generous matching incentives. We provide evidence on four of these frictions through a field experiment randomizing undersaving employees to information- and incentive-based treatments linked to a survey assessing each friction’s baseline incidence. We describe four main findings: (1) We corroborate prior work showing pervasive deficits in retirement literacy and their correlation with saving but reject any meaningful increase in saving from personalized recommendations that demonstrably improve literacy. (2) In an (unplanned) analysis of plan confusion, we estimate that 20 to 37 percent of non-participants mistakenly believed themselves to be enrolled—these employees enrolled at high rates when prompted to review their enrollment status. (3) We find no evidence that enrollment complexity impedes saving—few employees perceived enrollment as prohibitively time-consuming and simplifying enrollment further did not increase saving. (4) We directly implicate present focus as a cause of undersaving by showing that a significant share of employees increased saving in response to a small but immediate microincentive ($10 gift card) but not to clarification of the dramatically larger, but delayed, plan match. A survey of leading stakeholders suggests that the prescriptions for increasing saving, implied by our findings, depart from those currently prioritized within the industry. Finally, calibrations indicate that a beta-delta model of present bias cannot account for the observed behavior and stated beliefs of employees without assuming implausibly high enrollment disutility. We propose an alternative model of anxiety-based present focus and delayed optimism that does explain our findings—and possibly other retirement savings puzzles—and offers a psychological rationale for reforms that link traditional 401(k) accounts to more liquid accounts (e.g., “Serenity Account”) designed to relieve near-term anxiety.

Source: SSRN

235 views