# Chronotype, Risk and Time Preferences, and Financial Behaviour
## 3 Methods
### Measures  
**Chronotype**. The composite scale [29] (CSM) extracts 13 items from the Horne and Ostberg [8] scale and the Torsvall and Akerstedt [34] scale. It is widely used to measure morningness-eveningness and has multiple language versions, including French [108], Spanish [109], German [110], and Thai [111]. Specifically, nine items from Hornes and Osberg [8] have Chinese versions in the literature [112; 113]; and thus, we directly used these items in the questionnaire. However, four items are from the Torsvall and Akerstedt [34] scale (their items 1, 4, 6, and 7), which have not been translated into Chinese in the literature. Therefore, we invited a Chinese native speaker who is proficient in both English and Chinese to translate these four items in parallel to ensure the validity and conceptual correspondence for the Chinese circumstance. The CSM scale ranges from 13 (extreme evening owl) to 65 (extreme morning larks). Furthermore, we tested the reliability of this measure in the Chinese version using [PERSON]'s alpha [114]. [PERSON] et al. [115] proposed four interval-based categories to assess the reliability of a summative scale [116], which consist of excellent reliability (0.90 and above), high reliability (0.70-0.90), moderate reliability (0.50-0.70), and low reliability (0.50 and below). The Cronbach's alpha for the Chinese adaptation of the CSM was 0.879, indicating that it is highly reliable, and this value is very close to that of the original English version of the CSM [29; [PERSON]'s alpha = 0.87]. Finally, we categorized the continuum of the CSM values into three chronotypes, following [PERSON] et al. [29]. We have 60 observations of morning-types (44 and above), 384 observations of intermediate-types (23-43), and only six observations of evening-types (22 and less). The three chronotype samples in our study are not evenly distributed. In particular, our sample is represented by 13.18 percent, 84.62 percent, and 2.20 percent following the morningness, intermediate, and eveningness classification, which indicates that the majority are intermediate type. By comparison, we note that our sample distribution is similar to those by [PERSON] et al. [117] and [PERSON] et al. [118] that also used the CSM scale. The distribution of their sample according to morningness, intermediate and evening classification is 7.12 percent, 85.87 percentm, and 7.01 percent and 2.5 percent, 84.8 percent, and 12.7 percent, respectively. Consequently, we address the difference in distribution by carrying out further tests using the adopted cut-off criteria proposed by [PERSON] et al. [119], which is eveningness, intermediate, and morningness at 22 and below, 23-40, and 41 and above, respectively. Our robustness test reveal that the results are similar to those in Appendix B with the exception that the circadian rhythm scale is replaced by the newly categorized morningness. All the remaining results support the hypothesised relationships. Because of the very few observations of evening type, we re-categorized the sample to generate one binary variable, where one indicates morning-type while zero denotes non-morning-type. **Time preference**. We use a combination of intertemporal behaviour to proxy time preference, as proposed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [30], who constructed a summative scale using eight items, each representing one behaviour, with outcomes at different time points. The reason is to choose this method is that [PERSON] and [PERSON] [30] showed that this additive index is a strong predictor for measuring time discounting compared with traditional measurements in which respondents are asked to choose between receiving a small amount of money right now or a larger amount of money in the future. We also invited a native Chinese speaker who was proficient in both English and Chinese to translate these questions.