Household financial decision making: Qualitative research with couples

41
Conclusions
Understanding the characteristics of the different groups may prove useful for tailoring messaging 
about retirement planning. In particular, it may be worth considering that couples in the Unbalanced 
Responsibility group were least likely to engage with pensions.
5.4 
The individual character of retirement planning
The research also highlighted the possible limitations of approaching pension saving from a couple’s 
perspective: across the groups identified, pensions were typically treated as very individual financial 
products.
Most couples, even those in older age groups, discuss retirement only on occasion. Relatively few of 
those we interviewed had been truly active in putting retirement provision in place: although many 
had a non-state pension, this was in most cases a workplace pension offered by the employer and 
accepted by the individual. Pension ownership, therefore, is not typically the result of a genuine 
‘household’ decision, discussed by both partners.
The generally individual and work-based nature of pensions suggests that the workplace is likely 
to be the more appropriate space in which to communicate information about pension policy 
developments, particularly automatic enrolment. This research indicates that active pension-
related discussions and decisions may be more likely to happen in the workplace than elsewhere, 
including within the household. Discussions could still take place at home, for example when beta 
partners look to their partner for their opinion on the scheme, but they will still be given the relevant 
information at work as a starting point.
5.5 
The difficulty of engaging with pension products
Couples tend to make excuses for not having put more concrete retirement plans in place. Some 
rationalise their inaction by suggesting that they may continue to work beyond State Pension Age, 
or that they could downsize their home. Others say that they contribute to a savings account as 
a substitute for pension saving, or that they will save more for retirement in the future when their 
earnings are higher. 
Couples see retirement planning as involving long-term decisions with long-term consequences 
– what behavioural economics calls ‘delayed effects’. Unlike financial decisions with more 
tangible outcomes, like purchases, no immediate gain is made by starting or increasing pension 
contributions, or saving for retirement in some other way. This makes it difficult for momentum to 
build in the same way as with other financial decisions, where the topic needs to be returned to 
several times before an outcome is reached.
In this study, we found that while it is typical for significant financial decisions to be instigated by a 
trigger, few triggers appear to prompt decisions specifically about retirement provision, or to create 
engagement with pensions. The unfamiliarity of the decision type, often combined with a lack of 
financial confidence, mean that pensions often feel like an unknown quantity.
While it would be extremely difficult to transform pensions into a more tangible financial product, or 
to improve the relationship between today’s choice to save and the long-term experience of living 
from those savings, there are ways in which the potential positive outcomes of pension saving could 
be conveyed more clearly. For example, associating pensions saving with providing for one’s children 
could leverage parenthood’s role as a life trigger in prompting active decision making. Additionally, 
giving some sense of a ‘guaranteed minimum’ return on a pension may help to increase tangibility.

---