IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jpenef/v17y2018i03p385-417_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framing and the annuitization decision – Experimental evidence from a Dutch pension fund

Author

Listed:
  • BOCKWEG, CHRISTIAN
  • PONDS, EDUARD
  • STEENBEEK, ONNO
  • VONKEN, JOYCE

Abstract

We report the effects of framing settings in annuity demand after conducting a survey-based experiment with members of a Dutch occupational pension plan. We gave participants the option to allocate up to 20% of their projected pension accrual to a lump sum. In particular, we investigated the joint effects of consumption and investment frames and gain and loss frames. We present strong evidence for framing effects in annuity demand. Framing effects remain significant when we control for individual characteristics. We also find robust evidence of individual characteristics influencing annuity demand, highlighting the importance of heterogeneity among participants, for example risk aversion, time preference and trust in the pension fund. Gender and long-term debt positions have significant impact how one responds to framing. We conclude that Dutch plan members generally welcome the partial lump sum option over mandatory full annuitization. The application of frames appears to predictively steer annuity demand. The precise effect framing may have, would probably also depend on the institutional environment, which predefines the perspective through which individuals filter annuities.

Suggested Citation

  • Bockweg, Christian & Ponds, Eduard & Steenbeek, Onno & Vonken, Joyce, 2018. "Framing and the annuitization decision – Experimental evidence from a Dutch pension fund," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 385-417, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jpenef:v:17:y:2018:i:03:p:385-417_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S147474721700018X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey R. Brown & Jeffrey R. Kling & Sendhil Mullainathan & Marian V. Wrobel, 2008. "Why Don’t People Insure Late-Life Consumption? A Framing Explanation of the Under-Annuitization Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 304-309, May.
    2. Beshears, John & Choi, James J. & Laibson, David & Madrian, Brigitte C. & Zeldes, Stephen P., 2014. "What makes annuitization more appealing?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 2-16.
    3. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2004. "Save More Tomorrow (TM): Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 164-187, February.
    4. Ponds, Eduard H. M. & Riel, Bart Van, 2009. "Sharing risk: the Netherlands' new approach to pensions," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 91-105, January.
    5. Shlomo Benartzi & Alessandro Previtero & Richard H. Thaler, 2011. "Annuitization Puzzles," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 143-164, Fall.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Annamaria Lusardi & Olivia S Mitchelli, 2007. "Financial Literacy and Retirement Preparedness: Evidence and Implications for Financial Education," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 42(1), pages 35-44, January.
    8. van der Heijden, Eline & Klein, Tobias J. & Müller, Wieland & Potters, Jan, 2012. "Framing effects and impatience: Evidence from a large scale experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 701-711.
    9. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    10. Hurd, Michael & Panis, Constantijn, 2006. "The choice to cash out pension rights at job change or retirement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(12), pages 2213-2227, December.
    11. Annamaria Lusardi & Olivia Mitchell, 2006. "Financial Literacy and Retirement Preparedness: Evidence and Implications for Financial Education Programs," Working Papers wp144, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    12. Thomas Davidoff & Jeffrey R. Brown & Peter A. Diamond, 2005. "Annuities and Individual Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1573-1590, December.
    13. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    14. Giuseppe Cappelletti & Giovanni Guazzarotti & Pietro Tommasino, 2013. "What Determines Annuity Demand at Retirement?," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 38(4), pages 777-802, October.
    15. Jeffrey R. Brown, 2007. "Rational and Behavioral Perspectives on the Role of Annuities in Retirement Planning," NBER Working Papers 13537, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    17. Bart, Frits & Boon, B. & Bovenberg, Lans & van Ewijk, Casper & Kortleve, N. & Rebers, E. & Visser, M., 2016. "De Routekaart naar een Meer Integrale Benadering van Wonen, Zorg en Pensioen," Other publications TiSEM a89877b8-cd9b-484f-aa4c-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Annamaria Lusardi & Olivia Mitchell, 2007. "Financial Literacy and Retirement Planning: New Evidence from the Rand American Life Panel," Working Papers wp157, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    19. Julie R. Agnew & Lisa R. Anderson & Jeffrey R. Gerlach & Lisa R. Szykman, 2008. "Who Chooses Annuities? An Experimental Investigation of the Role of Gender, Framing, and Defaults," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 418-422, May.
    20. Dale Whittington, 2002. "Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 323-367, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carin van der Cruijsen & Jakob de Haan & Ria Roerink, 2023. "Trust in financial institutions: A survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1214-1254, September.
    2. Mitchell, O.S. & Piggott, J., 2016. "Workplace-Linked Pensions for an Aging Demographic," Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, in: Piggott, John & Woodland, Alan (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 865-904, Elsevier.
    3. Westerhout, Ed, 2020. "Pension Reform in the Netherlands," Discussion Paper 2020-012, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    4. Lambregts, Timo R. & Schut, Frederik T., 2020. "Displaced, disliked and misunderstood: A systematic review of the reasons for low uptake of long-term care insurance and life annuities," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    5. Hazel Bateman & Inka Eberhardt, 2024. "How Fact Sheets affect retirement income product knowledge, perceptions and choices," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 49(2), pages 119-141, May.
    6. Jeffrey R. Brown & Arie Kapteyn & Erzo F. P. Luttmer & Olivia S. Mitchell & Anya Samek, 2021. "Behavioral Impediments to Valuing Annuities: Complexity and Choice Bracketing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(3), pages 533-546, July.
    7. Westerhout, Ed, 2020. "Pension Reform in the Netherlands," Other publications TiSEM 083befc2-9d79-4181-9e10-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Carin van der Cruijsen & Nicole Jonker, 2019. "Pension profile preferences: the influence of trust and expected expenses," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(12), pages 1212-1231, March.
    9. Hazel Bateman & Ralph Stevens & Jennifer Alonso Garcia & Eduard Ponds, 2018. "Learning to Value Annuities: The Role of Information and Engagement," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/300030, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Rik Dillingh & Maria Zumbuehl, 2021. "Pension Payout Preferences," CPB Discussion Paper 431, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    11. Bucher-Koenen, Tabea & Knebel, Caroline & Weber, Martin, 2023. "Do individuals accept fluctuations in pension income?," ZEW Discussion Papers 23-019, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lambregts, Timo R. & Schut, Frederik T., 2020. "Displaced, disliked and misunderstood: A systematic review of the reasons for low uptake of long-term care insurance and life annuities," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    2. Johannes Hagen, 2015. "The determinants of annuitization: evidence from Sweden," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(4), pages 549-578, August.
    3. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    4. Beshears, John & Choi, James J. & Laibson, David & Madrian, Brigitte C., 2011. "Behavioral economics perspectives on public sector pension plans," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 315-336, April.
    5. Boyer, M. Martin & Box-Couillard, Sébastien & Michaud, Pierre-Carl, 2020. "Demand for annuities: Price sensitivity, risk perceptions, and knowledge," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 883-902.
    6. Johannes Hagen & Daniel Hallberg & Gabriella Sjögren, 2022. "A Nudge to Quit? The Effect of a Change in Pension Information on Annuitisation, Labour Supply and Retirement Choices Among Older Workers," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(643), pages 1060-1094.
    7. Hurwitz, Abigail & Sade, Orly & Winter, Eyal, 2020. "Unintended consequences of minimum annuity laws: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 208-222.
    8. Hurwitz, Abigail & Sade, Orly, 2020. "An investigation of time preferences, life expectancy, and annuity versus lump sum choices: Can smoking harm long-term saving decisions?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 812-825.
    9. Alicia H. Munnell & Gal Wettstein & Wenliang Hou, 2022. "How best to annuitize defined contribution assets?," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 211-235, March.
    10. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    11. Antoine Bommier & François Grand, 2014. "Too risk averse to purchase insurance?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 135-166, April.
    12. Jeffrey R. Brown, 2014. "Income as the Outcome: How to Broaden the Narrow Framing of U.S. Retirement Policy," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 17(1), pages 7-16, March.
    13. Buchholtz, Sonia & Gaska, Jan & Góra, Marek, 2018. "Pension Strategies of Workers in a Country Getting Old before Getting Rich," IZA Discussion Papers 11830, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Fang, H., 2016. "Insurance Markets for the Elderly," Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, in: Piggott, John & Woodland, Alan (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 237-309, Elsevier.
    15. Schreiber, Philipp & Weber, Martin, 2016. "Time inconsistent preferences and the annuitization decision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 37-55.
    16. David Blake & Tom Boardman, 2014. "Spend More Today Safely: Using Behavioral Economics to Improve Retirement Expenditure Decisions With SPEEDOMETER Plans," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 17(1), pages 83-112, March.
    17. Giuseppe Cappelletti & Giovanni Guazzarotti & Pietro Tommasino, 2011. "What determines annuity demand at retirement?," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 805, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    18. Martin F. Lueken & Michael Podgursky, 2016. "Determinants of Cashing Out: A Behavioral Analysis of Refund Claimants and Annuitants in the Illinois Teachers Retirement System," Working Papers 1605, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    19. Mohamad Hassan Abou Daya & Carole Bernard, 2022. "What matters in the annuitization decision?," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 158(1), pages 1-12, December.
    20. Hippolyte d’Albis & Emmanuel Thibault, 2018. "Ambiguous life expectancy and the demand for annuities," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 303-319, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jpenef:v:17:y:2018:i:03:p:385-417_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pef .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.