Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the 401(k) auto-enrollment rate influences the size of elected contribution rates in defined contribution plans for new, young enrollees.

The authors survey 324 undergraduate students at a mid-sized Midwestern university, and compare the elected contribution rates for two groups who were randomly given two default rates: 3 and 15 percent.

The results indicate widespread evidence of the anchoring and adjusting heuristic in regards to the provided auto-enrollment rate, as the 3 percent default rate group selects a contribution rate of approximately 2 percent less than the group that was provided with the 15 percent default rate. The results also provide support to the benefits of financial education: those who were taking or had already taken a college-level finance course provide higher contribution rates by about 1.7 percent overall. Additionally, individuals with the lowest critical thinking skills elect approximately 2 percent less in annual contributions overall than those who demonstrate higher critical thinking skills.

Interestingly, all groups seem to be susceptible to the anchoring and adjustment heuristic, as the default rate plays a significant role in the elected contribution rate, regardless of an individual’s financial sophistication or critical thinking skill level. The authors hope that these findings prompt benefit plan administrators and policy-makers to reconsider default rates in their retirement plans that would allow for maximum savings and participation rates. The findings also speak in favor of developing programs that would assist enrollees with financial education and critical thinking skills that would yield better retirement savings decisions when asked to make their employee benefit selections.

This paper evaluates potential methods for reducing ambiguity surrounding returns on equity to improve long-term savings decisions.

We evaluate 221 undergraduate students in the US and first assess the degree of ambiguity aversion exhibited by individuals in the sample population as they decide between a risky (known probability) option and ambiguous (unknown probability) option pertaining to their chances of winning $0 or $1 in a hypothetical lottery. Similarly, we test whether sampling historical return data through learning modules influences long-term decision making regarding asset allocation within a retirement portfolio.

Allowing participants to experience the underlying probability through sampling significantly influences behavior, as participants were more likely to select the ambiguous option after sampling. Here, we also find that participants who receive interactive learning modules – which require users to manually alter the asset allocation to produce a sample of historical return data based on the specific allocation entered in the model – increase their post-learning equity allocations by 10.1% more than individuals receiving static modules. Interestingly, we find no significant evidence of ambiguity aversion playing a role in the asset allocation decision.

We find that decision-making related to ambiguous and risky options can be substantially influenced by experiential learning. Our study supplements previous literature, providing a link between research on the effect of ambiguity on stock market participation and implementation of educational programs to improve the asset allocation decision for young adults.