+91-9561854529 editorinchief.ijama@gmail.com submitpaper@ijama.in Contact Form

Nudge Architectures, Default Effects, and Long-Term Pension Enrolment Persistence

Author(s):Lars Andersen, Sophie Leclerc, Heinrich Vogel, Miriam van der Berg

Affiliation: Department of Behavioural Economics and Public Policy, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark

Page No: 76-82

Volume issue & Publishing Year: Volume 3, Issue 4, April 2026

published on: 2026/04/08

Journal: International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Application.(IJAMA)

ISSN NO: 3048-9350

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19483306 Style APA

Download PDF

Article Indexing:

Abstract:
Occupational pension savings rates across Europe remain systematically below levels required to sustain pre-retirement living standards for the majority of workers, generating projected retirement income adequacy deficits that will intensify as demographic ageing erodes pay-as-you-go public pension systems. Behavioural economics offers a toolkit of low-cost nudge interventions — default enrolment, social norm messaging, loss and gain framing, and combined nudge architectures — that have demonstrated substantial enrolment effects in US and UK defined-contribution pension contexts, but their comparative efficacy, long-term persistence, and socioeconomic heterogeneity across Continental European pension systems has not been evaluated in a rigorous multi-country pre-registered field experiment. This study presents a pre-registered randomised field experiment conducted across 4,284 employees in six European countries — Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Austria — testing five nudge conditions against a status quo control in the context of voluntary supplementary pension scheme enrolment. The default-on (opt-out) condition produced the largest immediate enrolment effect (62.8% vs. 18.4% in control; OR=7.42), while the combined nudge condition achieved 71.4% enrolment. Social norm messaging (44.2%) and loss framing (48.6%) produced intermediate effects. At fifty-two weeks post-intervention, enrolment persistence was highest for the default-on condition (63.2%), confirming that default effects are structurally embedded rather than dependent on continued attention. Subgroup analyses identified low-income workers and those with low financial numeracy as the highest-benefit population segments, showing enrolment effects 12–18 percentage points above the overall treatment mean, confirming the equity-improving potential of well-designed pension nudge architectures.

Keywords: nudge, behavioural economics, pension enrolment, default effect, social norms, loss aversion, field experiment, retirement savings, financial behaviour, public policy

Reference:

  • [1] Andersen, L., Leclerc, S., & Vogel, H. (2023). Comparative pension nudge effects across Continental European defined-contribution schemes: A pilot study. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 22(3), 418–434.
  • [2] Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2004). Save more tomorrow: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1), S164–S187.
  • [3] Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Leth-Petersen, S., et al. (2014). Active vs. passive decisions and crowd-out in retirement savings accounts. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1141–1203.
  • [4] Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B. C., & Metrick, A. (2004). For better or for worse: Default effects and 401(k) savings behavior. Perspectives on the Economics of Aging, 81–122.
  • [5] European Commission. (2022). Pension Adequacy Report 2022. Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Brussels.
  • [6] Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.
  • [7] Leclerc, S., van der Berg, M., & Andersen, L. (2022). Loss framing and pension savings: Evidence from a French field experiment. Economica, 89(354), 412–436.
  • [8] Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2008). Planning and financial literacy: How do women fare? American Economic Review, 98(2), 413–417.
  • [9] Madrian, B. C., & Shea, D. F. (2001). The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149–1187.
  • [10] OECD. (2023). Pensions at a Glance 2023: OECD and G20 Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris.
  • [11] Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.
  • [12] Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save More Tomorrow: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1), S164–S187.
  • [13] Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven.
  • [14] van der Berg, M., Vogel, H., & Leclerc, S. (2023). Social norm messaging and pension enrolment in Dutch occupational schemes. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 104, 101988.
  • [15] Vogel, H., Andersen, L., & van der Berg, M. (2021). Default enrolment and opt-out rates in European supplementary pension schemes: A systematic review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 35(4), 1142–1168.