The Implications of Daylight Saving Time: A Field Experiment on Cognitive Performance and Risk Taking
Download full text from publisher
Other versions of this item:
- Markus Schaffner & Jayanta Sarkar & Benno Torgler & Uwe Dulleck, 2015. "The Implications of Daylight Saving Time: A Field Experiment on Cognitive Performance and Risk Taking," CREMA Working Paper Series 2015-06, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
References listed on IDEAS
- Lisa A. Kramer & Mark J. Kamstra & Maurice D. Levi, 2000.
"Losing Sleep at the Market: The Daylight Saving Anomaly,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1005-1011, September.
- Kamstra, M.J. & Kramer, L.A. & Levi, M.D., 1998. "Losing Sleep at the Market: The Daylight-Savings Anomaly," Discussion Papers dp98-04, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
- John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018.
"Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data,"
World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
- Hey, John D & Orme, Chris, 1994. "Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1291-1326, November.
- Matthew J. Kotchen & Laura E. Grant, 2011.
"Does Daylight Saving Time Save Energy? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Indiana,"
The Review of Economics and Statistics,
MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1172-1185, November.
- Matthew J. Kotchen & Laura E. Grant, 2008. "Does Daylight Saving Time Save Energy? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Indiana," NBER Working Papers 14429, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier.
More about this item
KeywordsDaylight saving time; Risk-taking behaviour; Cognitive performance; Field experiment;
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
- C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
- C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
- I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
NEP fieldsThis paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2016-02-29 (All new papers)
- NEP-EXP-2016-02-29 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-NEU-2016-02-29 (Neuroeconomics)
- NEP-UPT-2016-02-29 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
StatisticsAccess and download statistics
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qut:qubewp:wp030. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dipa Sarkar). General contact details of provider: https://research.qut.edu.au/qube/ .
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.