We humans are a lazy species. We look for short-cuts and imagine them when they don't exist.

While this trait may be quite creative, it tends to lead us down the wrong path.

Among the foremost of these cognitive biases stands the concept of "anchoring" – the idea that people regularly latch onto seemingly random factoids and use them as the basis point for making complex (and often detrimental) decisions.

Recommended For You

We see examples of anchoring frequently in situations requiring negotiations, anything from massive union contracts to buying a car at the local dealer.

A good negotiator begins with an arbitrarily high price, then "concedes" to a lower price. You feel like you're winning even if you're paying more than you originally intended. Oh, well. Better luck next time.

Unfortunately, when anchoring appears within the retirement plan environment, it can have devastating long-term consequences, (see "How Anchoring Hurts 401(k) Retirement Savers," FiduciaryNews.com, December 14, 2017). We see through capriciously low deferral targets (usually centered around 3%) as well as almost anything dealing with investments (benchmarking to a haphazard index rather than what the saver actually needs).

As bad as anchoring can be, do you know anchoring can also be used to encourage better decision making?

After all, anchoring represents an example of heuristic inertia – decision-making based on mental short-cuts because it's easier. "Easier" is the operative word here. We've already seen how it can work in a positive way. Here are just two examples that I'm sure you're quite familiar with:

Example #1: Participation

Bad anchoring: opt-in plan design. This requires an employee to take positive action in order to participate in the company's 401(k) plan. The "anchor" is to "do nothing." In this case, doing nothing means not participating in an automatic retirement savings program. This is generally not in the best interests of the employee.

Good anchoring: opt-out plan design. This requires an employee to take positive action in order not to participate in the company's 401(k) plan. The "anchor" is still to "do nothing." This time, however, doing nothing means participating in an automatic retirement savings program. This is generally in the best interests of the employee. We call this plan design feature "auto-enrollment" and it has proven successful at increase plan participation, particularly among younger employees who stand to gain the most (via the duration of compounding returns) by saving at their age.

Example #2: Investment options

Bad anchoring: traditional plan menu design without a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA). Before the 2006 Pension Protection Act (PPA), too many employees were placing their long-term assets in short-term investments like stable value funds. They did this because they were "safe" investments. Of course, in terms of the long-term growth goals most employees require, these investments aren't safe at all because they generally can't generate the long-term returns needed by the typical retirement saver.

Good anchoring: modern plan menu design with QDIA. Once the 2006 PPA defined the QDIA, including them in plan menus has become the standard. This accomplished two things. First, it redefined "safe" in the eye of employees. Previously, "safe" was an FDIC-insured bank account. Now, "safe" is a professionally managed portfolio specifically designed for long-term growth. Second, the "D" in QDIA stands for "default," meaning the employee need take no action as the plan automatically places the retirement savings into this investment. Recall the importance of the word "easier" mentioned a few paragraphs above.

What's the lesson from these two examples? Yes, anchoring can be a bad thing.

It gets worse. Anchoring is pervasive. It's human nature. There's almost no escaping it.

The martial arts has developed a strategy to use when confronted by an clearly overwhelming enemy. It's called Jiu-Jitsu and it means redirecting the strengths of your enemy to your advantage. It turns out, the best way to defeat anchoring is to pick an alternative anchor. That's what we see in the examples of both auto-enrollment and the QDIA.

There are plenty more situations where anchoring exists in the 401(k) environment. Are you prepared to perform an anchoring Jiu-Jitsu?

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Christopher Carosa

Chris Carosa has been writing a weekly article and monthly column for BenefitsPRO online and BenefitsPRO Magazine since 2011 and is a nationally recognized award-winning writer, researcher and speaker. He’s written seven books, including From Cradle to Retire: The Child IRA; Hey! What’s My Number? – How to Increase the Odds You Will Retire in Comfort; A Pizza The Action: Everything I Ever Learned About Business I Learned By Working in a Pizza Stand at the Erie County Fair; and the widely acclaimed 401(k) Fiduciary Solutions. Carosa is also Chief Contributing Editor of the authoritative trade journal FiduciaryNews.com and publisher of the Mendon-Honeoye Falls-Lima Sentinel, a weekly community newspaper he founded in 1989. Currently serving as President of the National Society of Newspaper Columnists and with more than 1,000 articles published in various publications, he appears regularly in the national media. A “parallel” entrepreneur, he actively runs a handful of businesses, including a small boutique investment adviser, providing hands-on experience for his writing. A trained astrophysicist, he also holds an MBA and has been designated a Certified Trust and Financial Advisor. Share your thoughts and story ideas with him through Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/christophercarosa/)and Twitter (https://twitter.com/ChrisCarosa).