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
    ---><---

    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. Pamela Searle & Peter Ayton & Iain Clacher, 2024. "Annuity selection in the presence of insurer default risk and government guarantees," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 91(1), pages 161-192, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Rik Dillingh & Maria Zumbuehl, 2021. "Pension Payout Preferences," CPB Discussion Paper 431, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.