Retirement savings - survey experiment

Last registered on January 13, 2021

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Retirement savings - survey experiment
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0006995
Initial registration date
January 07, 2021

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
January 08, 2021, 11:39 AM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
January 13, 2021, 12:04 AM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
BETA
PI Affiliation
BETA
PI Affiliation
BETA

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2021-01-07
End date
2021-01-18
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This study seeks to learn more about how people make choices about their retirement savings products.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bleasdale, Michael et al. 2021. "Retirement savings - survey experiment." AEA RCT Registry. January 13. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.6995
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Three varying displays of retirement savings products will be presented to participants.
Intervention Start Date
2021-01-07
Intervention End Date
2021-01-18

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Choice of fund, Time to complete
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Choice of any fund that is not ‘poor’ performing, Choice of ‘Top’ fund, Ease Rating, Intention to switch
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
A three-arm trial, randomised at the individual level.
Experimental Design Details
The experiment will test two primary conditions: the number of categories the participants see, and the sort order of the presented funds. It will be a three-arm trial with differences in the number of categories and sort order. It will include the following groups:
a. Group A: two categories (Good and Poor performance), randomly sorted
b. Group B: three categories (Top, Fair and Poor performance), randomly sorted
c. Group C: three categories, sorted by performance category (then randomly sorted within each category)
Hypothesis 1: On average, respondents in group B will choose a higher rated fund as compared with Group A (Group A < Group B).
Hypothesis 2: On average, respondents in group C will choose a higher rated fund as compared with Group B (Group B < Group C).
Hypothesis 3: On average, respondents in group C will choose a higher rated fund as compared with Group A (Group A < Group C).
Hypothesis 4: On average, respondents in Group C will take less time to make a decision than Group B (Group B > Group C).
Hypothesis 5: On average, respondents in Group B will take less time to make a decision than Group A (Group A > Group B).
Hypothesis 6: On average, respondents in Group C will take less time to make a decision than Group A (Group A > Group C).
Randomization Method
Participants will be randomised to condition within the survey platform, with roughly equal allocation to each condition.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
2000 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
2000 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
667 individuals
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
For the power calculations we set alpha at 0.1 as we are less concerned with a false positive. The sample size is capped at approximately 2,000 participants. We conducted sensitivity analysis to find the minimum detectable effect (MDE). All analyses were conducted in RStudio (R version 4.0.2). For all hypotheses we will conduct one-sided tests. It is unlikely that changing categories or sorting will result in participants selecting a worse performing fund or taking longer to make a decision. Our calculations suggest that with N = 2000, we will have 95% power to detect an effect size of d = 0.16. For fund choice, this equates to approximately 0.3 rank change assuming a pooled standard deviation of around 3 rank scores. For time to complete, this is a difference of less than a second assuming a pooled standard deviation of around 15 seconds.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee
IRB Approval Date
2021-01-05
IRB Approval Number
52020944424157
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials