No abstract

The Behavioral Life‐Cycle hypothesis (Thaler & Shefrin, ) models consumers as having both impatient “doer” preferences, representing their desire to spend now, and patient “planner” preferences, representing long‐run welfare considerations. The Behavioral Life‐Cycle hypothesis suggests that those with doer preferences may benefit from strategies that constrain their present behavior and promote saving for the future, like automating deposits into savings accounts. We analyze over 4,000 responses from the nationally representative National Financial Well‐Being Survey to (a) describe consumer characteristics associated with the decision to automate savings deposits, and (b) explore whether automation is related to improved financial welfare, especially for impatient consumers. We find that savings automation is positively associated with financial socialization (whether the respondent's family discussed financial matters growing up) and financial skill (the ability to act on financial knowledge). We also find that impatient consumers—relative to those with stronger planner preferences—have fewer liquid savings, lower financial well‐being, less confidence in their ability to raise $2,000, and more difficulty paying bills. However, as predicted, these differences between consumers with doer and planner preferences largely disappear for those who automate savings deposits. We discuss implications of this research for financial planners in helping clients improve financial welfare.

Given the severity of the threat posed by climate change, why is large-scale societal action to decarbonize our energy systems not more widespread? The present article examines four categories of psychological barriers to accurate risk perceptions and engagement with this topic by the public. First, psychological barriers such as (a) not personally experiencing the threat, (b) not hearing people talk about climate change, (c) being limited by cultural narratives, and (d) not understanding how climate change works can lead to misperception of the threat posed by climate change. Second, individuals may lack knowledge or perceived ability about how to address the threat. Third, social barriers such as social norms not to act and socio-structural barriers can discourage climate change engagement. Finally, worldviews such as neoliberal ideology and conspiratorial worldviews can conflict with climate change engagement.

No abstract

No abstract