# Chronotype, Risk and Time Preferences, and Financial Behaviour
## 4 Results
### Robustness Check  
We changed the dichotomously measured morningness in the benchmark analysis to a continuum scale, because [PERSON] et al. (2015) proposed the idea of using continuum scale of morningness-eveningness, which may provide richer information regarding the hypothesized relationships. We also used a different single question that was also proposed by [PERSON] et al. (2016) to measure risk preference, which can generate an all-around factor to predict risky behaviour. In addition, we added both risk and time preference measures in all settings of the regression and path analyses, as risk and time are intertwined. It would be problematic to isolate risk attitude when studying time preference ([PERSON] et al., 2016), because uncontrolled risk preference can create present-biased choices or behaviour. By changing the measures of the key variables of interests and increasing bootstrap sample size from 5000 to 50,000, we intend to verify the robustness of our results.  
The analysis first shows that circadian rhythm is negatively associated delinquent credit debt payments, and time perspective partially mediates this relationship. In addition, income moderates  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Financial Risk Preference**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Stock Market Participation**} \\ \hline \hline  & **Variables** & **Coefficient** & **SE** & **t** & **Coefficient** & **SE** & **z** \\ \hline Constant & 7.866 *** & 0.722 & 10.899 & \(-\)4.974 *** & 0.962 & \(-\)5.168 \\ Age & \(-\)0.232 & 0.188 & \(-\)1.231 & 0.077 & 0.233 & 0.330 \\ Male & 0.766 *** & 0.183 & 4.180 & 0.600 *** & 0.232 & 2.587 \\ Married & 0.381 & 0.232 & 1.647 & 0.487 *** & 0.255 & 1.912 \\ Education & \(-\)0.144 & 0.164 & \(-\)0.876 & 0.693 *** & 0.199 & 3.474 \\ Morningness & 0.713 *** & 0.280 & 2.545 & 0.549 & 0.351 & 1.566 \\ Monthly income & 0.379 *** & 0.093 & 4.070 & & & \\ Financial preference & & & & & 0.303 *** & 0.059 & 5.174 \\ Monthly income \(\times\) Morning type & 0.210 & 0.305 & 0.688 & & & \\ R2 & 0.115 & & & & & \\ Pseudo R2 & & & & & & 0.116 & \\ Number of observations & 455 & & & & 455 & \\ Moderator: Monthly income & Bootstrapping indirect effect & & Boot SE & & 95\% CI (LL, UL) \\ Low (\(-\)1 SD from mean) & 0.146 & & 0.136 & & \(-\)0.100 & 0.444 \\ Average (0 SD from mean) & 0.216 & & 0.095 & & 0.054 & 0.422 \\ High (\(+\)1 SD from mean) & 0.286 & & 0.147 & & 0.047 & 0.620 \\ Index of moderated mediation & & & SE & & & \\ Mediator & Index & (Boot) & & & 95\% CI (LL, UL) \\ Financial preference & 0.064 & 0.095 & & \(-\)0.107 & 0.279 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported; bootstrap sample size = 5000. CI = confidence interval;  
LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. * indicates \(p<0.1\), ** indicates \(p<0.05\), and *** indicates \(p<0.01\).  
\end{table}
Table 10: The conditional indirect effect of morningness on stock market participation.  
this indirect effect on the path from time preference to delinquent credit debt payments. Second, risk preference still fully mediates the positive association between circadian rhythm and the likelihood of participating in the stock market. Consequently, the results are still robust after changing the measurements of key variables, which enhances the empirical evidence supporting the hypothesized relationships. For brevity purposes, we report the details of robustness check in Appendix B.