Protocol: Psychological Factors of Financial Planning for Retirement in Working-Age Adults: A Scoping Review

Abstract

This is a protocol for a scoping review. The main objective is to understand what has been reported in the literature about the psychological factors that play a role in financial planning for retirement. The secondary objectives include: (a) examining the occupational groups that have been the focus of prior studies; (b) investigating how financial planning for retirement has been defined and measured; (c) mapping the types of decision-making and behaviors within financial planning for retirement that have been the focus of prior research; (d) identifying the geographical regions studied in relation to the psychology of retirement financial planning; and (e) determining the predominant publication types in this field (e.g., scientific journals, governmental reports). This review will incorporate both peer-reviewed publications and grey literature. The findings will provide valuable insights for policymakers and financial institutions to develop targeted interventions, while also identifying research gaps that can guide future studies to refine approaches and explore understudied areas.

Background

The lack of long-term financial security for individuals, exacerbated by the projected doubling of the population aged 65 and over between 2021 and 2050 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2023), has placed significant strain on government budgets due to increased public welfare spending (Lee & Mason, 2017). It has become evident that relying solely on the public welfare system may be insufficient to ensure a comfortable quality of life during retirement, as evidenced by data from various countries around the world including the Netherlands (Biesenbeek et al., 2024) and the United States (Tan et al., 2023). The reduction in pension entitlements from public welfare systems is expected to be at least partly offset by increasing entitlements from funded schemes such as private and workplace pensions (OECD, 2023). This implies that individuals, especially those who are not traditionally employed, must consider taking personal responsibility for their future by proactively calculating their potential sources of retirement income and saving through private pensions. Failure to take appropriate action leads older people to lack sufficient resources to brave financial shocks which may lead to dire consequences such as older-age poverty, detrimental health outcomes, and other significant welfare implications (Institute of Medicine Committee on the Long-Run Macroeconomic Effects of the Aging U.S. Population, 2012).

Despite the government’s efforts to adopt active policies aimed at involving citizens in their financial planning for retirement (Choi & Jang, 2016), individuals struggle to take action and, most of the time, fall short of recommended savings goals (AEGON Center for Longevity & Retirement, 2018; Fidelity International, 2020). These low saving rates suggest the need to understand why retirement planning is such a big hurdle.

Research on financial planning for retirement, traditionally rooted in economics and related fields, is increasingly acknowledging the significant role of psychological factors. This shift is evident in the growing number of publications exploring psychological explanations for retirement planning, as well as in findings from previous systematic reviews (e.g., Kerry, 2018; Kumar et al., 2019). While previous reviews have shed light on psychological factors in financial planning for retirement, many are now outdated, limited in scope, or restricted to specific populations or frameworks. The current scoping review addresses these gaps by incorporating both recent peer-reviewed studies and grey literature, thereby providing a more comprehensive and practice-oriented overview of the field.

The results of this scoping review are expected to provide insights for policymakers, financial institutions, and retirement planning services by mapping how psychological factors have been studied in the context of financial planning for retirement. By identifying research gaps and synthesizing existing evidence, the review can clarify current knowledge on the psychological determinants of retirement planning, highlight priorities for future research, and guide the development of systematic reviews. In the longer term, such efforts may also provide a foundation for designing interventions or educational programs.

The Contribution of This Review

Several reviews have explored topics similar to those of the current review, including studies on psychological factors of financial planning for retirement. In our desk research, we identified four such reviews. Although previous reviews offer valuable insights and will be taken into consideration in our review, they also vary in methodological rigor and focus compared to our intended approach:

Kerry’s (2018) systematic review, titled “Psychological Antecedents of Retirement Planning,” published in Frontiers, investigates predictors of both financial and non-financial retirement planning.

Kumar et al.’s (2019) systematic review, titled “Women’s Financial Planning for Retirement: Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda,” published in the International Journal of Bank Marketing, investigates psychological and socio-economic predictors of retirement planning, specifically in women.

Tomar et al.’s (2021) article, “Financial Planning for Retirement: Bibliometric Analysis and Future Research Directions,” published in the Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, briefly covers the psychological determinants of financial planning for retirement.

Ghadwan et al.’s (2022) integrative systematic review on “Financial Planning for Retirement Models” published in the Pertanika Journals, investigates conceptual models and underlying theories behind previous studies focusing on financial planning for retirement. It also briefly covers psychological determinants of financial planning for retirement.

Ren and Lim’s (2023) integrative review, titled “Financial Planning for Retirement: An Integrative Literature Review of the Hershey Model,” synthesizes empirical studies applying the Hershey et al. (2007) model of financial planning for retirement, which organizes predictors into three domains: capacity (e.g., cognitive abilities), willingness (e.g., motivation, goals, attitudes), and opportunity (e.g., environmental and social resources).

Ingale and Paluri’s (2025) systematic review, titled “Retirement Planning – A Systematic Review of Literature and Future Research Directions,” synthesizes 191 peer-reviewed studies on retirement planning, using the TCCM framework (Theory, Context, Characteristics, and Methods) to organize findings related to predictors of retirement planning, measurement approaches, and methodological trends.

Although these prior reviews contribute valuable insights, they also present notable limitations that the current review aims to address. Kerry (2018), while conceptually grounded, is now outdated, as it includes no studies published after 2018. Tomar et al. (2021) and Ghadwan et al. (2022) only briefly mention psychological determinants, without systematically identifying or classifying them. Kumar et al. (2019) focuses exclusively on women, limiting generalizability to broader populations. Ren and Lim (2023) restricted to the Hershey model and do not consider alternative frameworks. Ingale and Paluri (2025), while offering a broad and structured synthesis, do not examine participant characteristics such as occupational status (e.g., employed vs. self-employed). Furthermore, none of these reviews were pre-registered, nor did they include grey literature.

This review differs from previous ones and uniquely contributes to existing research in several important ways. First, we prioritize transparency and reproducibility by conducting a carefully pre-registered, standardized review (Higgins et al., 2022). In addition, to ensure comprehensive coverage, our search strategy draws on input from content experts and information specialists to select appropriate keywords and databases.

Second, our review extends the scope of prior research by analyzing grey literature. The inclusion of grey literature is particularly important in research on financial planning for retirement given its practice- and policy-driven nature. Relevant insights into psychological factors and retirement behaviors often appear in government reports, regulatory documents, dissertations, and non-peer-reviewed working papers, which may contain the most up-to-date evidence on pension reforms, policy changes, and applied contexts. Moreover, because retirement systems are highly jurisdiction-specific, local government and industry reports are often the primary sources of evidence, making grey literature essential for reducing publication bias and ensuring a comprehensive view of the field.

Third, we explore the breadth of research on psychological factors in financial planning for retirement across various employment types (e.g., employed versus self-employed) and geographical regions, aiming for a nuanced understanding of differences in retirement planning behavior. Additionally, we examine how financial planning for retirement is defined and measured in prior studies, focusing on understanding what specific decision-making or behaviors within the scope of financial planning for retirement has been researched, such as seeking professional advice and actual saving behaviors. This approach allows us to identify gaps in the existing literature and areas needing further research. Our review thus offers a more comprehensive perspective on the psychological factors of financial planning for retirement, thereby advancing current knowledge and helping to set priorities for future research.

Objectives

The current scoping review aims to synthesize published research on the psychological factors involved in financial planning for retirement, specifically by identifying and describing the cognitive, affective, and behavioral influences examined in this context. Beyond this, the current review seeks to assess the scope of existing research by investigating how financial planning for retirement is defined, conceptualized, and measured, as well as examining the diversity of employment types and geographic regions studied. Additionally, we analyze the various outcomes reported across studies. By identifying gaps in the literature, this review provides guidance for future research directions and lays the groundwork for future systematic reviews and related research by highlighting key psychological constructs and underexplored areas.

Primary Research Question

This review addresses the primary question of:

What psychological factors are identified to play a role in financial planning for retirement in the previously published research?

Secondary Research Question

1. This review also addresses the following research questions:

2. What occupational groups (e.g., employed/self-employed, full-time/part-time, white collar/blue collar) have been the focus of studies examining psychological factors related to financial planning for retirement?

3. How is financial planning for retirement defined and measured across existing studies?

4. Which types of decision-making or behaviors within the scope of financial planning for retirement (e.g., professional advice-seeking, saving behavior) are the focus of prior research?

5. Which geographical regions are represented in studies examining the psychology of financial planning for retirement?

6. What are the predominant publication types for studies in the field of financial planning for retirement (e.g., scientific journals, governmental reports, dissertations)?

Methods

Given the broad and exploratory nature of this topic, this study employs a scoping review methodology to address the research question(s) (Campbell et al., 2023). A scoping review is well-suited to map the psychological constructs, populations, and contexts (e.g., occupational group, country) that have been studied to date. The goal is not to evaluate associations or synthesize effect sizes, but to identify patterns and gaps in the existing evidence base.

The review follows the methodological framework established by the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020, 2021; Pollock et al., 2023) and Arksey and O’Malley (2005). The review adheres to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting (Tricco et al., 2018).

Inclusion Criteria

Types of Population

The scoping review will include studies focusing on individuals who are currently active in the workforce, whether employed or self-employed, working part-time or full-time, and residing in any country worldwide. Studies focusing on individuals who are retired, have never worked (e.g., unemployed, actively seeking work for the first time), or unpaid in their work will be excluded. This exclusion is intended to ensure that the data reflects the perspectives of those currently engaged in retirement planning. Including retirees might introduce recall bias due to reliance on memory, and their experiences may reflect a different retirement system than those currently in place.

Types of Contexts

As the current review aims to assess relevant studies across different regions, it will include countries without restrictions on geographical location or income level.

Types of Concepts

Dependent Variable (DV): This review will include studies focusing on Financial Planning for Retirement (FPR) as the primary outcome variable. FPR refers to actions taken to meet financial needs during the retirement phase of life (Topa, 2017). It encompasses all stages of retirement planning (e.g., gathering information, saving for retirement). FPR may be measured objectively (e.g., reported savings) or subjectively (e.g., self-reported planning behavior or intentions). Studies that treat psychological constructs (e.g., self-efficacy, stress, or financial anxiety) as dependent variables rather than as predictors of FPR will be excluded. This is because the aim of the review is to map psychological influences on retirement planning behavior, not the outcomes of psychological constructs themselves. Studies that do not measure financial planning for retirement (FPR) as an outcome will be excluded, since they cannot provide evidence on psychological influences on retirement planning behavior.

Independent Variable (IV): To be included, studies must investigate psychological factors of FPR. Studies that do not prioritize psychological or behavioral predictors but include them as secondary findings may still be incorporated.

Types of Studies

The current review will encompass empirical studies or summaries thereof, including.

• Quantitative studies, such as cross-sectional surveys, longitudinal studies, and experiments, that assess psychological predictors (e.g., beliefs, intentions, self-efficacy) in relation to FPR outcomes (e.g., saving behavior, advice-seeking, planning activity).

• Qualitative studies using systematic analysis methods (e.g., thematic analysis, grounded theory) that explore psychological processes or experiences related to FPR, such as motivations, perceived barriers, or decision strategies. Studies without a clear focus on psychological constructs and without rigorous methods will be excluded.

• Mixed-methods studies that include either of the above components.

• Systematic reviews that synthesize psychological aspects of FPR will be screened to identify additional primary studies but will not be included as standalone sources.

We will exclude anecdotal reports, case studies, case series and theoretical papers, as they typically lack systematic analysis of psychological variables or empirical results, hence do not contribute to the aims of this review. No date limit for publication has been set for this review, since the body of research on psychological aspects of financial planning for retirement is still relatively small, and older studies may provide valuable insights. Additionally, studies must be available in the English language.

This review will include studies from both peer-reviewed publications and grey literature. Peer-reviewed publications are articles subjected to formal editorial and peer-review processes, such as in academic journals or university press. They are sourced from bibliographic databases managed by commercial publishers. The bibliographic databases included in this review are Academic Search Premier (via EBSCOhost), APA PsycInfo (via EBSCOhost), the Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection (via EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Publicly Available Content Database, ProQuest Sociological Abstracts, and PubMed.

Grey literature, which is defined as material produced by government, academia, business, and industry in both print and electronic formats, but not controlled by commercial publishers (New frontiers in grey literature, 1999), will be identified through two methods: (1) Searches of traditional bibliographic databases, including grey literature such as conference abstracts (i.e., PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global); (2) Hand-searching of key websites, both relevant to the subject (i.e., major associations or government departments related to the topic such as IDEAS-REPEC and Netspar) or ones that facilitate policy-related publications. In total, we will identify grey literature in five platforms, namely: SSRN, IDEAS-REPEC, Netspar, the Pension Research Council [Working Papers Section], and Policy Commons.

In addition to searching the venues listed above, we will conduct a backward citation search (examining reference lists of included studies), a forward citation search (identifying studies that have cited included articles), and hand-search key journals that appear most frequently during screening. We will also review the studies included in prior systematic reviews on this topic, as well as the reference lists of these reviews. These additional steps will be conducted after full-text screening has been completed, to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant literature.

Search Methods for Identification of Studies

To locate studies published in established bibliographic databases, we will adapt Boolean syntax originally developed by Kerry (2018), by including additional relevant keywords. The selected keywords align with the research focus of the current systematic review: financial planning for retirement and related psychological factors. We consulted two field experts and an information specialist to refine the keyword list and search strategy, ensuring the list and strategy are both thorough and effective. Furthermore, to validate the adapted Boolean syntax, we tested it against ten key articles that clearly meet the inclusion criteria. These articles were located through hand-searching and Google Scholar rather than via our search string, ensuring that the validation process assessed the Boolean strategy’s ability to retrieve known-relevant studies in at least one of the targeted databases (see Appendix A). Both the original and adapted syntaxes are available in Appendix B.

We also explored the use of subject headings (e.g., “Retirement,” “Retirement Planning,” “Decision Making”) and the expansion of retirement- and planning-related terms beyond the title field. These trials showed that such adjustments either broadened the search to thousands of irrelevant results or omitted key studies known to meet our criteria. As a result, we retained a keyword-focused strategy with targeted field restrictions, which best balanced sensitivity and precision for this review.

On the other hand, grey literature sources vary significantly in the search functionalities and filters they offer for retrieving results (e.g., the ability to search by title and abstract). While some provide advanced search capabilities comparable to those of typical bibliographic databases, most grey literature is found on websites with only basic search functions. Consequently, search strategies will be adjusted based on the capabilities of each grey literature source. The adaptations for these search strategies can be found in Appendix C. It is important to acknowledge that, due to the dynamic nature of the internet, achieving reproducibility in grey literature searches is more challenging. However, we will strive to maintain transparency and thorough documentation throughout the process, for instance, by manually saving the search results in “.pdf” form and indicating the date of retrieval. In addition, we will apply backward and forward citation searching, as well as hand-searching of key journals not only for peer-reviewed literature but also, where feasible, to identify relevant grey literature sources.

Evidence Selection

Bibliographic Database Screening

After the search, all identified citations are exported and uploaded to Rayyan, where the lead author removes any duplicates. Titles and abstracts are then screened in Rayyan by two independent reviewers to assess their alignment with the inclusion criteria, following a two-step process. First, a random sample of 25 titles/abstracts is independently screened by two reviewers (ZRNS and OS) using the eligibility criteria and elaboration document. The reviewers then meet to discuss discrepancies and refine the criteria/document, proceeding with formal screening once at least 75% agreement is reached. This pilot-testing procedure is consistent with recommendations from the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Peters et al., 2020). Afterward, the remaining studies are divided between the two screeners. Studies flagged for a second review are discussed with the team before making a final decision.

Grey Literature Screening

Grey literature sources are screened differently due to their limited functionality for exporting data (e.g., they do not allow mass export of files like. RIS). Therefore, the lead author will manually screen each website against the inclusion criteria. This initial screening involves reviewing titles, abstracts, or other available summaries in place of abstracts. Items that meet the inclusion criteria will be ‘bookmarked’ in the web browser during the search. For most of the grey literature database, the first 50 items of each search will be screened (see Appendix C). This method is adapted from the grey literature selection process used by Godin et al. (2015). Studies flagged for a second review will also be bookmarked and discussed with the team before a final decision is made. All bookmarked items will then be manually imported into Rayyan.

Full-Text Review

Items selected based on their title and abstract or summary will undergo a full-text review in Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., 2016), using the same inclusion criteria. A random sample of 25 full-texts will first be independently screened by both reviewers (ZRNS and OS), with discrepancies resolved jointly. If fewer than 25 full-texts are available, all identified full-texts will be jointly screened. Screening will proceed once at least 75% agreement is achieved, consistent with JBI recommendations (Peters et al., 2020). Once this agreement is reached, any additional full-texts beyond the initial 25 will be divided between the two screeners. Any full-text sources that do not meet the criteria will be excluded, with the reasons for exclusion recorded and reported in Rayyan. The search results and study selection process will be thoroughly detailed in the final scoping review and presented in a PRISMA flow diagram (Peters et al., 2021; Tricco et al., 2018).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data will be extracted from the selected papers and charted by two or more independent reviewers (ZRNS and OS) using a data extraction tool developed in advance by the lead author (see Appendix D). The data charting form includes specific details about the participants, study methods, and key findings and is aligned with the research question and objectives. This draft extraction tool has been piloted by the lead author and will be adjusted as needed during the data extraction process from each included source.

The extracted data will be collated, tabulated, and narratively described in relation to the review objective and questions. To structure the data, all identified psychological variables will be mapped to the Capacity-Willingness-Opportunity (CWO) model.

Originally developed by Blumberg and Pringle (1982) to assess job performance determinants, the CWO model was later adapted by Heshey et al. (2012) to explain factors influencing retirement planning. The model outlines three key components.

• Capacity (C): Cognitive skills and metacognitions that facilitate retirement planning.

• Willingness (W): The underlying drive and intention, such as optimism, goals, and emotions.

• Opportunity (O): The environmental and structural support, such as social and organizational resources, that enable the behavior.

Recognizing that not all psychological variables may fit within the CWO framework, additional dimensions may be introduced as necessary to categorize the variables.

Finally, gaps in the literature will be identified to inform future research (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005).

Data Analysis and Risk Assessment

This scoping review includes studies with diverse methodologies, including qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods designs, and systematic reviews. Given this diversity, we do not plan to conduct any quantitative analyses, as the primary aim of this review is to map the existing evidence rather than to explore sources of heterogeneity quantitatively.

Additionally, risk of bias will not be assessed, as this review does not synthesize intervention effects. Per PRISMA-ScR and JBI guidelines, such assessment is not required for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020; Tricco et al., 2018). However, we will note instances where discrepancies are observed between reported outcomes and those listed in the methods section.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Protocol: Psychological Factors of Financial Planning for Retirement in Working-Age Adults: A Scoping Review

Supplemental Material for Protocol: Psychological Factors of Financial Planning for Retirement in Working-Age Adults: A Scoping Review by Zafira Rahmania Nur Shabrina, Olaf Simonse, Lotte F. van Dillen, Wilco W. van Dijk, Mirre Stallen in Campbell Systematic Reviews.