Employer benefits receipt-Low-Favorable impacts

Recently Added

CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.

Search
for studies on
this topic using
keywords
and filters

Displaying 11 - 15 of 15

Save More Tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving (Thaler & Benartzi 2004)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study aimed to determine whether a retirement savings plan that automatically increased 401(k) contributions whenever an enrolled employee’s salary increased improved savings rates among…
For Better or for Worse Default Effects and 401(k) Savings Behavior (Choi et al. 2004)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s key objective was to examine the impact of automatic 401(k) plan enrollment on enrollment rates and contribution levels at three firms in the United States. The analysis was based on…
Saving for retirement on the path of least resistance (Choi et al. 2004)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of different 401(k) plan designs on employees’ saving behavior at several U.S.-based firms. The analysis was based on administrative data provided by each company. The…
Investor behavior and the purchase of company stock in 401(k) plans—the importance of plan design (Liang & Weisbenner 2002)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to determine whether 401(k) plan characteristics, including the number of total investment options offered by a 401(k) plan and the requirements for whether employers’…
The effect of the social security earnings test on male labor supply: New evidence from survey and administrative data. (Haider & Loughran 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective is to examine the impact of 1983 and 2000 policy changes that removed the Social Security earnings test for certain age groups on the earnings and employment outcomes of…

CLEAR Icon Key

Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.

High Causal Evidence

Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence

Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence

Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis

Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis

Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis

Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable

The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed

The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None

The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable

The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable

Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence

The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence

The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence

The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence

The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.