Liebman (2012) researched the correlation between employment and social security benefit, to further assess individual’s perception of social security system and how it is developed. Understanding the perception or misperception will explore the expense for an incorrect decision, the potential gain from its improvement, and ideas for effective communication programs. Therefore, he focused on:
1. To evaluate the social security reform and its degree of effectiveness, because there is common understanding that social security reform will improve its efficiency
2. To assess people’s opinion of social security incentives, because any misperception will hinder the benefit of its policy reform and will result on wrong decision
Liebman (2012) applied
…show more content…
They understand the correlation between employment and social security benefit, which was somehow greater than the actual, and that many people misperceived these incentives. Social Security Administration (SSA) was identified as the most reliable source to provide information, and that the “break-even” concept used by SSA drive an earlier benefit claim than another concept. The study also confirmed that respondents understand various provisions in the Social Security benefit rules, even though they have a different level of knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to provide complete information about the impact of employment on future social security incentives to avoid misperception and wrong …show more content…
After dropping those who were out of research criteria, they came up with 2,483 working respondents, who were divided into treatment and control group randomly. While the control group did not receive any intervention, the treatment group received brochures by mail and 15-minute web-tutorial about social security that was completed by 76.8% respondents from the treatment group. After a year, both groups was invited to a follow-up survey to assess the effect of those interventions, with 64.3% response rate (Liebman, 2015).
The research showed that giving some information through brochure and web tutorial improved employee’s level of knowledge about social security incentive for working longer, provide them with better choice and then affect their behavior. That information intervention significantly increased employees’ decision to stay in the labor force by 4%, particularly driven by female respondents who decided to work additional years (7%) because of the treatment. However, there was no explanation why the impact on female respondent was higher than the total result. It is also difficult to identify which intervention drives the behavior change, or whether it is the only or primary driver (Liebman,