|
Field
Paper Abstract
|
Before
|
After
We conduct a randomized controlled trial to understand how a web-based retirement saving calculator affects workers' retirement-savings decisions. In both the treatment and active control conditions, the calculator projects workers' retirement income goal. In the treatment condition only, it also projects retirement income based on defined-contribution savings, prominently displays the gap between projected goal and actual retirement income, and allows users to interactively explore how alternative, future contribution choices would affect the gap. The treatment increased average annual retirement contributions by $174 (2.3 percent). However, effects were larger for those with higher measures of financial knowledge, suggesting this type of tool complements, rather than substitutes for, underlying financial capability.
|
|
Field
Paper Citation
|
Before
|
After
@article{GODA2023561,
title = {Are retirement planning tools substitutes or complements to financial capability?},
journal = {Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization},
volume = {214},
pages = {561-573},
year = {2023},
issn = {0167-2681},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.08.001},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268123002834},
author = {Gopi Shah Goda and Matthew R. Levy and Colleen {Flaherty Manchester} and Aaron Sojourner and Joshua Tasoff and Jiusi Xiao},
keywords = {Retirement planning, Retirement saving, Exponential-growth bias, Present bias, Financial literacy, Financial capability},
abstract = {We conduct a randomized controlled trial to understand how a web-based retirement saving calculator affects workers' retirement-savings decisions. In both the treatment and active control conditions, the calculator projects workers' retirement income goal. In the treatment condition only, it also projects retirement income based on defined-contribution savings, prominently displays the gap between projected goal and actual retirement income, and allows users to interactively explore how alternative, future contribution choices would affect the gap. The treatment increased average annual retirement contributions by $174 (2.3 percent). However, effects were larger for those with higher measures of financial knowledge, suggesting this type of tool complements, rather than substitutes for, underlying financial capability.}
}
|